A TECHNICAL OFFENCE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 31, 5 August 1925, Page 11

A TECHNICAL OFFENCE

CASE WITHDRAWN FROM JURY SOLDIER-SETTLER AND THE CROWN. (BI TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, 4th August. The unusual course of withdrawing a case from a jury was taken by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court to-day in tha trial of Stanley Forbes Gough Williams for defrauding the Crown by selling stock and chattels covered by a bill of sale. Mr. Paterson, who appeared for the Crown, said that Williams was a soldier settler who in 1920 took up a Crown section and received considerable advances for the purchase of stock and implements. He gave bills of Bale to the Crown over his chattels and stock. In October, 1921, he wrote to the Commissioner of Crown Lands stating that he had sold some of the stock and had used the money to buy oUier stock. The Commissioner replied that all money received from the sale of stock had to be remitted to the Crown Lands Office direct, and explained that the money could be re-advanced. In January, 1923, the Commissioner wrote to Williams asking if ho had branded all his stock according to the requirements of the bill of sale. Williams replied that he had. Later a Crown lands ranker visited the property, and found thaffjime.of the stock mentioned in the bill of sale were missing. In August, 1924, the accused, who had then left nis holding, wrote to the Commissioner stating that ho had sold some of the stock in order to keep going. He also complained that the Government had not carried out its obligations, and stated that he had lost £450 of his own money as well as four years' work. W. W. Barton, Fields Inspector for the Crown Lands Department, said that of the 32 head of stock originally bought for accused there wore nine on the place when he made his last inspection. The accused might have said to him that some of the stock had been lost. Accused, in evidence, gave details of his dealings in cattle since 1923. He had sold some cows for a total of £15 l*7s 6d, and he used the money in living and working expenses. When he left the farm he took away ohlv three or four pounds in money and his blankets. He started on the section with £220 capital. The first year's working showed a profit of £6, in the second year he was £42 to the good, but in the third year there was a loss of £219. He also made losses in the two following years. His Honour said that if' seemed that there could be no defence to the charge. The matter was more or less trivial as far as the amount involved waj concerned. It was probable that the Crown did not realise the amount was so small when the information was laid. There was no doubt that technically an offence had been committed. Mr. Paterson said tjhat he wn.s prepared to admit that it was a trivial technical offence. His Honour said he did not propose to go further with the matter and place the indignity of a conviction on accused. Ho would withdraw the case .from the jury and not ask for a verdict. Accused would be discharged.