NOVEL POINT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 March 1925, Page 5

NOVEL POINT.

AN APPEAL CASE. INTERPRETATION. OF A CLAUSE. (by TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION WELLINGTON; March 17. The Court of Appeal, comprising the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Reed, Mr Justice Sim, Mr Justice Adams, and Mr Justice Ostler, heard argument to-day on an appeal from Auckland in the form of a case stated by Mr Justice Herdman under the provisions cf section 442 of the Crimes Act, 1907. • The point involved is a novel one. In April, 1924, one Ronald Nitz, a gum-digger, won a tea-set at a bazaau held at Mangawai as a prize for guessing thejlength of A piece of string. A man named Joe Blaziiia guessed the same length and the parties drew for it. Nitz won, but the decision did not please the loser or his wife, Lena Blazina, both of whom alleged that the winner aud the committee had cheatedi The wife, however, w’ent further, and wrote Nitz two anonymous letters, threatening to accuse him of the crime of having unlawful carnal knowledge with a female under the age of sixteen unless he handed back the. tea-set to the Mangawai Ball Committee by a time she specified. On being approached by the police, Mrs Blazina admitted writing the letters, stating that she had been informed' of the facts by her husband and a friend at the time, and that - she was unaware that she was doing wrong in threatening Nitz with a criminal action. Counsel for the accused at ,the trial contended that the facts did not disclose the commission of an offence under section 269 of the Crimes Act, inasmuch as it. was not proved that there was any intention on the part of the accused to extort anything for herself. He submitted that section 269 means that to constitute an offence there must be proof that the accused intended to extort something for herself, and proof that her object was to gain something for another was insufficient.

Mr A. Fair, principal law officer, appeared for the Crown on appeal. The respondent was not represented by counsel, but a submission in writing was made to tb© court- by her counsel at the trial. Counsel for the Crown contended that it was immaterial whether the accused’s acts resulted in a gain for herself or another, and that the evidence disclosed an offence. He submitted that the language of the section was wide enough to cover a case of extortion or gain for the. benefit of third parties, and that the words ‘‘extort or gain” do not necessarily imply that pressure must be applied solely for the benefit of the person applying such pressure. Counsel for the Crown further contended that the case came within mischief, which the section was designed to prerent. There was no authority hearing directly on the point, and the interpretation of the section must rest on the general principles. The court reserved its decision.