GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

Evening Star, Issue 19550, 7 May 1927, Page 6

GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

BARNETT AND SHIEL CONVICTED REMANDED FOR SENTENCE HIS HONOR ON COMMERCIAL MORALITY. In the course of his summing up of the case involving the series of charges against Henry Emmett Shiel and Stanley Kitchener Barnett, Mr Justice Reed this morning made some scathing remarks concerning commercial morality as revealed in the transaction which was the cause of the prosecution. This transaction was that of the sale of a motor car, and the charges included those of false pretences, conspiracy, and forgery. The case was part heard yesterday, and this morning was resumed. The Crown Erosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said that, in view of his lengthy address on Friday and of the fact that they were in a hurry this morning, he would waive his right to address the jury at this stage. In addressing the jury Mr Neill said the case was not at all on all fours with the usual case of false pretences. The Crown Solicitor had described the deal in cars as an “elaborate swindle.” For an elaborate swindle there would usually be a tremendous lot of preparation, but what did they find in this case? Tho deal was quite an ordinary transaction. Where was Shiel more likely to dispose of his second-hand car than with the Motor and Engineering Company, the manager of which had said in evidence that at the time of the liquidation of the company there were fifty second-hand cars in stock. Probably Shiel received a shock and a surprise when £2OO was offered for the second-hand Buick, which was to bo given in part payment for a new car costing nearly £3OO. , The salesman of the Motor and Engineering Company had said that in fixing the value of tho car at £2OO he was actuated by the desire to do further business. Shiels, however, had had no opportunity or doing further business. In respect to the charge of forgery, learned counsel said his submission was that Shiel felt ho was quite entitled to assume the name of G. S Thompson. That was done in business. The bank official said ho knew of cases where cheques had been arranged. The Crown Prosecutor: “One instance.” His Honor; “I have no hesitation in saying that it was a very bad thing for the hank to do. It had no right to do it.”

Mr Neill: “If this is forgery, then the bank official is a party to the forgery.” In further addressing the jury, Mr Neill contended that there was nothing to support the charge that the two men had conspired. In business it was the usual axiom for the buyer to be careful. But what was found in this case? It had not been proved that the men “ took down ” Campbell Bros.; there was no preparation on their part to “take down.” As a matter of fact, the salesman from the buyer came along and fixed the price himself. If the jury thought Shiel was merely offering the car for sale, leaving it to Campbell Bros, to say whether they would take it, a.nd leaving it to them to fix the _price, then Shiel was entitled to acquittal. Mr Hanlon, addressing the jury on behalf of the accused Barnett, said that Mr Neill had covered most of the points involved. The most important charge—the crux of the whole matterlearned counsel went on to say, was that which' was buried beneath eight others—that of conspiracy. What evidence, ho asked, had the Crown produced to prove that the two men had put their heads together, had conspired by fraudulent means to defraud? Not a scrap of evidence was there. Nothing was more reasonable than that Shiel should go to Barnett, who had been his employee, and ask him to try and put through a deal by which he was to buy a car and trade off another in the process. Barnett merely acted as agent, and the trading of the old Buick was a perfectly legitimate transaction. Learned counsel pointed out that the witness Thompson bad sworn that though the market price of the old Buick was £l5O he would not, had he been sure that there would be no second sale, have given more than £SO. This witneft had also said in his evidence that he understood there was a “ possibility ” of_ the second sale not coming off. Coming to the charge of forgery, learned counsel submitted that there was no evidence at all that Barnett had forged the documents: he had uttered them, but was there any evidence that he had done so knowing them to be false documents? Unlessthe jury accepted the Crown’s contention that there was conspiracy, it was clear he did not. Learned counsel suggested that the jury take this count of conspiracy first, and if they found that this was proved then the rest was easy; but if they found there was no conspiracy, then, counsel contended," the whole case went by tbe board. HIS HONOR’S STRICTURES.

His Honor, in summing up, said that ho would first of all endeavor to clarify the atmosphere of the case. He must say that he agreed that the uncontradicted evidence in the case revealed an extraordinary idea of business morality. The accused Emmett Shiel was desirous of obtaining a new car. He planned to palm off an old car, which he had admitted to the detective had not been in use since 1925. tie admitted he was prepared to adopt a subterfuge and lie for the purpose of bringing that about. The worst part of the thing was that he was prepared to drag in a young man, only twentytwo years of age, for his own purposes. It might occur to the jury that, in making use of his catspaw to deal with the Motor and Engineering Company, Shiel placed reliance on the fact that the youth was the friend of a youth in that company, and that, with the combination of those two, the matter might go through. In carrying this out, Shiel placed a fictitious name on the cheque, on the sale note, and on other documents. He lied as to the existence of the fictitious Thompson, and it was an inference that he caused the number plates to bo battered so that they would appear as if they had been on the car for some time. It was unfortunately true, continued His Honor, that young Barnett had made rather an apt agent in the lying. Apparently he was prepared to take down his friend Thomson. Shiel, m having the youth deal with his friend, evidently tnought he might lull the friend into a sense of false security, and work off the car. Shiel admitted in his statement that he knew he could not sell the car if it were offered ii om him or the firm “That, gentlemen, is the atmosphere,” said His Honor, “and I have not the slightest doubt that every decent man cannot too strongly reprobate the undisputed acts of the principal fiecused.” His Honor went on to say that people sometimes committed acts which were condemned by reasonable and honest people, but, unless those people actually infringed the law, the law could not deal with them. The question was whether, in this case, the accused had overstepped the mark and put themselves within the bounds of the criminal law.

His Honor then proceeded to deal with the various counts against .the accused and to give the law in the case. The jury retired at 10-50 a.m. and returned at 11.35 with a verdict of guilty on all counts against both the accused, who were remanded till Monday for sentence.