AN ADVERTISING SCHEME

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 29, 3 August 1921, Page 6

AN ADVERTISING SCHEME

"WIN THE SWINSON, £5 NOTE"

ACCUSED DISCHARGED,

John Swinson, advertising contractor, who has the solo rights for the advertising of the tour of the South African fdotballers oil a 50-50 basis of profits with tho Now Zealand Rugby Union, was to-day calfcd before his Honour Mx. Justice Bead and a jury of twelve, of which Mr. A. W. Paton was foreWan, upon a charge of having on 3rd June made upon a photographic negative "certain fignres and characters purporting to be or apparently intended to resemble a Bank of New Zealand £5 note."

The repocfldnctions were paeted on posters exhibited in ten shop -windows in the city for the purpose of advertising the tour of the Springboks by the promotion of the "win the Swinson £3 note competition," for the forecasting of teams for the Probables and Possibles match prior to the selection of the New Zealand representative team. The "Swinson £5 note" was, of course, a genuine note, and not one of the reprodiuctions, wHeh were worthless. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. P. S.,K. Macassey, called formal evidence to prove the publication of the ten placards, upon which were pasted the reproductions of the £5 note. Detective-Ser-geant Andrews, who had chiirge of the police investigations, said that Swinson had been perfectly frank about the matter, and had explained the printing of the reproduction by means of the usual apparatus in hia photographic studio. Swinson had stated that he had acted in ignorance of the law, and had reproduced the notes simply in accordance with his scheme for advertising the tour of tho Springboks. In any case, he did not think that any bank would pass, those reproductions, since these were printed upon ordinary photographic paper, and their reverses were black.

Air. Luckie: "And the reproductions are only about two-thirds of the size of a Bank of New Zealand five-pound note."

"How were the reproductions coloured?" asked his Honour. Counsel replied that the prints had been made in black and white, and that the colouring had been done by a girl in the studio.

Witness produced the negative complained of, a quarter-plate, upon which the semblance of the note' appeared about one-quarter size. "I am afraid that I do know much about photograpty," remarked his Honour, "and I notice that the reproduction is considerably larger than the negative.". —"It has been enlarged," answered counsel.] Other witnesses for the Crown gave formal evidence as to the display of the poster in various shop windows, of complaints made by the Bank of New Zealand, and the calling in of the posters by the police.

NO SUGGESTION OF DISHONESTY,

Mr. Macassey pointed out to the jury that the Crown made no suggestion that Swinson had reproduced the note with dishonest intent, but he held that the making of such a negative brought Swinson within the penal clauses of section 300 of the Crimes Act, unless he could show that he had authority for the making of such a plate. NOT A CHARGE OF COUNTERFEITING. Mr. M. F. Luckie, for the defence, referred in his opening to the jury to the unfortunate misunderstanding which had gained currency in |>arts of New Zealand, other than Wellington, by the publication of a report that his client had been committed for trial upon a charge of possessing a photographic plate which' might be used for the "counterfeiting" of bank' notes. There was no suggestion , whatever of counterfeiting, for Swinson liad acted without the least fraudulent or dishonest intent. This was a strange case, indeed, for here was!a man charged with one of the gravest charges, next to those involving homicide, under British law, and yet he had acted perfectly honestly.

Counsel then referred to details of English as compared with New Zealand Jaw irpon the subject, ■ and suggested to ithe Bench that the jury, wliich was ■temporarily discharged by hifl Honour during the hearing c-f legal argument, should be instructed to place a very .much wider meaning upon the term "lawful excuse," etc., than had been iheld in the classic English cases cited. One ol those cases referred to the making of a die under peculiar oircum•stances. A had gone to B with a, re■quest that he should manufacture a die. B, being suspicious, informed the Mint authorities, who gave him permiEsian to strike the die in order that they might arrest A with it in his possession. B then wan held to have acted with lawful ■excuse. A was treated differently. Even if Swinson. had niade exact reproductions of a £5 note, printed and finished on both sides, counsel held he would still not have been guilty of forgery nnless.it were known that he had acted with guilty intent, since preparation for forgery and forgery itself were intimately connected. Mr. Macassey submitted that the statute contained an absolute prohibition against the possession, of such a plate ,by any person. "LAWFUL EXCUSE." "Do you suggest," aeked his Honour of Mr. Luckie, "that if some artistic person engraved a copper plate in the semblance of a £5 note, far a test or something of the kind, that' he would not come within the section?"—"l hardly think that any person could engrave a plate without some guilty knowledge."

After hearing further legal argument his Honour said he would discharge the prisoner, and that discharge would have the full effect of an acquittal.