EXTRAORDINARY THEFT.

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 April 1910, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY THEFT.

SEQUEL TO AN UNPOSTED LETTER. [i»T i iileouach —rru i'UIISS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, April 7, The Cotut heard the case of Hex v. Hau—a case which had been reserved by Judge Cooper for the opinion of the Court of Appeal under section 4-12 of the Crimes Act, 1903. In (his . ase the prisoner found an unposted letter. Upon reading it he found that it contained statements which lie considered reflected np.m the character <>f the per son to whom it was addressed, instead ol posting the letter lie wrote to tinperson to whom it was addiessed staling that he would give up the letter on the payment of a sum of money. He was indicted for the theft of (lie letter, also with demanding money by threats and was found guilty. I be Judge who tried the case reserved the following questions for tin- Court of Appeal :-—(!) Was there evidence to go to a jury which they could probably convict of (heft? (2) Was there evidence upon which they could convict him of demanding money through threats? Dr. Ram ford (Auckland) appeared, for (he prisoner, and Mr. Myers for the I Grown. After hearing argument the Court was unanimously of opinion that there was evidence to go to a jury, both that the prisoner had been guilty of theft, and Hint, he had endeavoured to extort money by menaces. I hr Conviction was alllrmed.