NOT GUILTY VERDICT

Grey River Argus, 1 December 1943, Page 2

NOT GUILTY VERDICT

FALSE PRETENCE CHARGES r) ■ —" Supreme Court at Greymouth A verdict of not guilty. on both counts was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court G’ejmoutn vecterdav on charges against re y Henry'Birchfield, sawmill hand aged 28 of Haupiri, that on or about Oc tober 13 at Moana, with intent to defraud, he obtained from John Charles Baker, the sum of ±l2l by laiseiy pretending that he. was the owner of and entitled to dispose of an Austin 7 saloon motor-car; and that on or about October 14, at Christchurch with intent to defraud, he obtained from Baker the sum of £l9 and a post-dated cheque for £2O by means of the said false pretence. Mr Justice Northcroft presided. The jury added a rider the effect of which was that where a certificate of registration of a vehicle was issued the name of the owner and of the hirer should be shown. His Honour had remarked in reply to a question by the jury that the only inference to be drawn from the certificate of registration was that the car had been transferred to Birchfield as owner. It was an unsatisfactory form, he added, and the matter required overhauling in the interests of innocent purchasers. At the first trial on Monday on the same charges the jury had disagreed, but had found Birchfield not guilty on a third charge of stealing the motor-car. Mr F. A. Kitchingham represented the Crown and Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for the accused. When the new trial opened yesterday morning the following jury was empanelled: S. F. White (foreman), R. D. Mclntosh, L. J. Fitzsimmons, P. E. Sweetman, P. E. Bishop, J. J. Keating, junr., G. C. Cuff, H. J. Hill, J. W. Greenhill, H. C. Jackson, M. A. Brown and J. E. A. McKeefry. A Evidence along the lines of that given at the first trial was given by Thomas Bertie Baty, motor engineer, John Charles Baker, motor mechanic and Herbert Edward Knight, senior detective, all called by the Crown. After counsel had addressed the jury and His Honour had summed up, the jury retired at 12.45. At 2.28 it returned with three questions for the Judge. These were:— (1) According to His Honour’s remarks the certificate of registration mentions transferer and transferee. The owner is named as Howard Hooper. Therefore there is nothing to show that Baty had the right to sell either.

His Honour said that it was quite true that the certificate of registration named Hooper as owner and did not sav in what capacity it had been transferred to Baty. The only inference to be drawn was that it had been transferred to him as owner. The same applied to its transfer to Birchfield. It was an unsatisiactory form. “The matter requires overhauling in the interests of innocent purchasers,” His Honour added. (2) What standard of education had Birchfield? His Honour said that he had the ordinary education of anyone going through a t State school without having a secondary education. (3) What effect would the handing over of the promissory notes have as regards the hire purchase agreement, seeing that interest is charged in advance? His Honour said that the payment of promissory notes would have no effect on the rights or duties of either party under the agreement. They would not operate to pay off the instalments in advance, so that as a matter of law the agreement would still be in force, notwithstanding the delivery of the promissory notes. Tlie jury again retired and at 2.52 returned with a verdict of not guilty on both counts, adding a rider to the effect that where a certificate of registration of a vehicle was issued the name of the owner .and the hirer be shown thereon. His Honour said that this was a quite proper recommendation to make, and asked the Crown representative to forward it to the proper authorities. Prisoner was discharged.