SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 148, 8 June 1932, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

THE NAPIER SESSIONS , ' CASE AGAINST HYSLOP JURY CONSIDERING THEIR VERDICT The case against William Ebenezer Hyslop, managing director of the Tourist Motor Co., of Hastings, who pleaded not guilty to two charges of false pretences, was concluded at the Supreme Court at Napier, before His Honour the Chief Justcie, Sir Michael Myers. The jury retired at midday to consider their verdict, and returned at 3.10 o’clock this afternoon with a request that they be allowed to see the accused’s statement made to the police, and also a document signed by him concerning the Studebaker Six car. THE JURY RETURNED WITH A VERDICT OP NOT GUILTY.

In his final address to the jury, the Crown Prosecutor said that although it was not his duty on behalf of the Crown to stress the case against the accused, yet it was his duty to bring out all the facts. He did not think a jury was justified In bringing sentiment into their minds when arriving at a verdict, and although Hyslop’s reputation was at stake, this should not affect a verdict brought in fairly on the evidence heard. The defence had urged that the Guarantee Corporation did not come into the matter at all, but the Crown Prosecutor insisted that that company and the insurance companies concerned were all involved in the same matter.

In regard to the Hudson car, the Crown’s ease was that the car was not purchased for £l5O and that a deposit of £5O -was not paid. The jury had heard the evidence of the purchaser, Wyllie, who had denied having paid £5O deposit. Then why did the accused’s books show that the amount had been paid? For the sole reason, the Crown Prosecutor submitted, to meet the demands of the New Zealand Guarantee Corporation, which was to give an advance on the transaction. There was no entry in the Tourist Company’s books to show that the £5O had been paid. The necessary documents for the Guarantee Corporation’s advance were prepared by the Tourist Company’s secretary, Mr Pickering, while Hyslop merely signed them. It was for the jury to decide whether or not Mr Pickering had failed to disclose to Hyslop that the £5O deposit had not been paid. Even if Hyslop did not know the true position, why did ho go to Ilannay some time later and get a cheque from him, when at that time he actually had found out that no deposit had been paid? “BALLOONED” THE PRICE. Regarding the deal in respect of the Studebaker six car to Alex. Wyllie, Hannay, who had arranged the transaction, had written to his employers, the Tourist Motor Company, to the effect that he had sold the car for £203 13s 6d, but that he had “ballooned” the price to £303 13s 6d. The Crown suggested that the Dodge car put in as deposit and representing £lOO was purely a fictitious arrangement. This car, about a month later, was given to F. V. Wyllie, and an entry made in the books “no charge.” If the car had been given to Wyllie in consideration of services rendered, then it would be extremely unlikely that such an entry would have been made in the company’s books. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the car had been given back to Wyllie, not for services rendered, but as a gift, the handing in of the car having supposedly served its purpose.

The Studebaker-nine car was alleged to have been sold to an undischarged bankrupt at the price of £l5OO with a deposit of £5OO, which included an Austin car traded in. The Crown’s allegation wrns that the car had actually been sold for £1250, and that part of the deposit (£250) was a purely fictitious sum, shown for the purpose of gaining a larger advance from the New Zealand Guarantee Corporation.

JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. In his summing up, His Honour reminded the jury that the case before the Court was a criminal one, and not a civil action. It did not follow, from what he now had to say, that the accused should be found guilty, but he felt bound to say that some of the actions during the transactions were deplorable. If the jury found that the accused actually had no knowledge of the fact that the deposit on the Hudson car was not paid, then they could not find him guilty in regard to that count. In regard to the sale and purchase of the Studebaker-nine car, the deposit had been stated to be £250 cash, but His Honour deplored the fact that promissory notes given for part of that deposit should be treated as cash. To treat promissory notes, which were merely pieces of paper representing a liability to pay, as cash, was an action which must shock the senses of a business man.

His Honour recommended the jury to arrive at their verdict in respect of one charge only. If the Crown had failed to prove its case, then it was the jury’s duty to find the accused not guilty. If there was no sum of £5O paid or intended to bo paid as deposit, then the question was whether the accused knew that no such sum was paid. If the jury found that Hyslop did, in fact, know that no sum of £5O had been paid, then the verdict must be one of guilty. The questions for the jury t consider were:—(l) Were the statements made by the accused false? (2) Wore the statements made knowing them to be false? There was no evidence whatsoever that the £5O deposit was ever paid in respect of the Hudson car by Alex. Wyllie.. However, the jury might suspect that Hannay was dishonest. If that was the ease, then that did not necessarily mean that the accused was dishonest.

The secretary of the Tourist Motor Company, Mr Pickering, knew that no deposit of £5O had been paid. Tn view of the fact that Pickering and Hyslop were closely connected in their business relations, it was for the jury to decide whether or not the accused also knew that the sum had not been paid. A great deal of evidence had heen brought regarding the Studebaker nineseater car. This vehicle was not the the subject of a charge, but the evidence was brought to show the accused’s system in dealing with the New Zealand Guarantee Corporation. In a memorandum placed on Hyslop’s desk and i ritten by Hannay, the latter stated that ho hud signed uj» Lea