FORTUNE-TELLING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 106, 1 November 1909, Page 8

FORTUNE-TELLING.

ANOTHER CONVICTION, DEFENDANT FINED. Judgment on an interesting point was given in the Magistrate's Court to-day by Mr. W. G. Riddel], S.M., relative to the case against Mary Lyons, alias Madame Hyland. who was charged with undertaking to tell fortunes to one, a probationer, named Ernest Snow. Mr. Wil ford, for defendant, Jiad asked leave that the case be tried by a jury. Under section 261 of the Crimes Act, according to the Magistrate, any person who undertakes to tell fortunes is liable on conviction to one year's imprisonment, with hard labour. The procedure dealing with the preliminary hearing in the case of an indictable offence was found in the Justices of the Peace Act, and in ordinary cases, if the evidence was sufficient, the accused -was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. But by section 224, instead of committing the accueed for trial, the justices may, if they think the offence can be sufficiently punished in a summary manner, deal with the offender summarily. It was clear that the change in procedure could not be determined by the justices until the evidence for the prosecution had been placed before the court. If the justices then decided to deal with the matter, it became an indictable offence, triable summarily, for which the maximum penalty was one month's imprisonment, with or without hard' labour. Defendant's counsel elected to be tried by a jury, and argued that if such a general right existed, it could not be taken away by section 224. "I am satisfied."' remarked Mr. Riddell, "that in such cases no such right exists." He thought that the offence must be treated as an indiotable one, until the evidence for the prosecution was completed, then the justices, if they considered a prima facie case had been made out, might either commit the accused for trial or deal with the matter summarily. If they decided on the latter course, the maximum penalty was fixed by the statute at one month's imprisonment, and accused had no right of election. If the original term of imprisonment fixed by the Crimes Act had remained unaltered, no doubt accused would have been entitled to the right claimed. "I consider the present proceedings," said Mr. Riddell, "are in order, and that the court has no authority to offer, or the accused any right to demand, the privilege clauned. I also consider that a prima facie case has been made out, and that accused should bo dealt "with summarily." Mr. Wilford intimated that in that case he proposed putting defendant in the box to give evidence. "NOT ONE WORD OF THE FUTURE." Defendant, Mary Lyons, in evidence denied that she had told one word of the future to informant Snow. She always refused to speak as to the future, as she had obtained legal advice on the question eighteen months ago. Witness admitted that she had been convicted in Wanganui or Dannevirke eighteen months ago for fortune-telling, and had a-lso been convicted in Sydney last January on a similar charge. Mr. Wilford submitted that the evidence of the two probationers that defendant said to Snow, "I told you enough about the future this morning," was capable of two interpretations. Accordingly, he urged that defendant he dealt with leniently. The evidence for the prosecution, he considered, >vas inconclusive, and the benefit of any doubt should be given defendant. The second probationer's evidence was that of an accomplice, and needed corroboration. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. | Mr. Riddell said that there was no objection to reading character by hand or palm, and it did not constitute an offence so long as it merely related to the character of the person. According to the probationers' evidence, some of the information defendant gave concerned the future. Such statements as "You will many the girl, and will have seven children," svere^ all relative to the future. Mr. Xtiddell did not agree that one of the probationers was an accomplice in the strict sense of the word. He held that defendant must be convicted. A fine of £3 was imposed. Penalty for default was fixed at seven days' imprisonment. • ADJOURNED. The cases against Madame Clara Sinclair, informations charging her with undertaking to tell fortunes, w ere adjourned until Wednesday.