SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 211, 20 August 1927, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES F. BURGE ACQUITTEDAfter an all-da.y sitting at ill quarterly sessions oi the supreme court m Aapier yesteiuuy beioie nis Honour Mr. justice Usuer, till* case in wmen era rib. uurge was inuicteo on a charge oi allegedly false pretences, was concluded. Evidence similar to that given in the case in wnich the two mothers figured was given. Mr. O’-Leary appeared lor the defence and Mr. J Mor Li ng was Crown Prosecutor.

in addressing the jury, Mr. O’Leary explained that me case toi the Crown was, briefly, that certain timber had been loaded at Burge s mill, dockets were made uut and a copy sent to Udinis, and a copy was held at the mill. The timber and dockets arrived in the possession ui Udlins yet m some mysterious way the dockets were altered alter they had been in the oihce. ~i ou are tu inter that Frank Purge or someone else gained access into the office and either took the docKets away and altered them or that the alteration was done in the office, yet there is not a tittle of evidence to show that anyone had gained access into the building and altered the documents Burge is alleged to nave altered the dockets and then billed Udlins lor the extra amount. The case is one of alleged larse pretences but it implies breaking and entering if you are to believe the case as put forward by the Crown,” declared counsel, who pointed out that in the early part of the Crown’s case the mill book foj January was produced and apparent iy at the null dockets’ were made m tnpilicate. The Crown suggested that the copy at the mill was the correct one, yet counsel contended that it had been Burge who had produced this evidence. Counsel added that it had been shown in the evidence that on occasions dockets had been made out but when loading it had been found that the lorry could carry more and so additions were made and the dockets were accordingly altered. Ln conclusion counsel stated that the Crown s case must be proved beyond all reason* abie doubt, otherwise the jury must acquit the man they were trying. Again the Crown Prosecutor (Mr •J. Morling) elected not to address the jury. HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. Ln summing up the facts of the case, His Honour contended that though the jury was entitled to give due weight to the previous good character of the accused it had to be satisfied that the accused had either committed or not committed the offence charged. Because he had been ol good character it did not necessarily mean that being a first offender, he should be acquitted because oi that. Tile case was one of alleged false pretences not necessarily one of breaking and entering. After a retirment of 52 minutes the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.