A PUZZLED JUDGE

Gisborne Times, Volume LX, Issue 9798, 7 May 1924, Page 5

A PUZZLED JUDGE

DAIRY FACTORY CREAM TEST CASES. -

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD. ‘

MAN PLEADS GUILTY.

JURY’S VERDICT MEANS' NOT

GUILTY

ACCUSED DISCHARGED

„„ PALMERSTON N., May G. ~ J - lle local sessions o± the Supreme wo urn opened this morning before Mr Justice & almond. True bills were returned in five cases wherein Henry Simpson was charged with Arthur Melvin Taylor, John 'Jens Sorens ihomasen, Otto Kreighen Richard Gairgan, and Alfred Wright, with conspiracy to defraud in connection with tlie supply of cream to the Cheltennam Dairy Company. t ,. The first ease heard was against -umpson and Thomasen, charged that during. October last they conspired to defraud the Cheltenham Dairy Company of £S9 18s by means of 'false cream tests.

Simpson pleaded guilty and Thomasen pleaded nPt guilty. Simpson left the dock and the trial against the second accused was proceeded with.

Addressing the jury, the Crown 1 rosecutor said that while there was no, question the Company had been defrauded of a certain sum, the amount set out in the charge was merely speculative. It represented the probable loss by the Company by accused’s alleged conduct. The way tile alleged fraudulent conspiracy was round out was • somewhat unusual. When Simpson was absent from work at the factory, owing to illness, the tests went down, but when he returned a few weeks later the tests immediately went up again. The suspicions of the Company were aroused. The defendant, with the others* involved, were given an opportunity of explaining. They attended a meeting of directors, and counsel claimed that the offence was practically admitted. Later. There were no witnesses for the defence.

An extraordinary legal situation arose when the jury returned with a verdict in the case of Thomasen of not guilty of' conspiracy, hut guilty of defrauding the company through Simpson’s neglect. The verdict caused some consternation, His Honor confessing he could not understand it. He pointed out that the question was whether the accused Thomasen had conspired with Simpson with intend to defraud.. . The Foreman: The jury finds there was lio agreement between the two men.

His Honor: In that case I shall take the finding as one of not guilty. Does the jury understand that Simpson has already pleaded guilty to having conspired with Thomasen? The Foreman: The jury dealt with the. case from Thomasen’s point ot view and found no part of conspiracy. The Crown Prosecutor suggested, that the jury be asked to reconsider their verdict, hut this was disallowed by His Honor, who said the best way would be that Thomasen be discharged and as other charges were pending against him,' that he' he detained till to-morrow.-

The Crown Prosecutor said Simpson should be allowed to withdraw his plea and be discharged. His Honor: But he will have been arraigned on a criminal charge and discharged without trial or plea. As it required two to form a conspiracy, Simpson, according to the jury, was not guilty. In addressing Simpson, His Honor Air Justice Salmond said, “You have pleaded guilty to conspiracy. You may have thought you were guilty, but the jury has found there was no conspiracy;’ 5 The Crown Prosecutor searched vainly for a parallel case. Both prisoners were discharged, though Simpson was detained on other similar charges in respect to several other farmers. —P.A.