ANOMALY IN THE LAW

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 269, 28 October 1932, Page 9

ANOMALY IN THE LAW

CASE OF OAR CONVERSION. JUDGE’S COMMENT. Auckland, Oct- 27. An anomaly of the law which urgently needs revision was referred to by Mr Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court when three young men were jointly charged with stealing a motor car. Mr Meredith, on behalf of the Crown, said that there was a difficulty in the case—namely, whether on the facts which would be adduced In the evidence the jury could reasonably decide that there was intent to steal. If there was no such Intention the case could only be dealt with under the Police Offences Act. Mr Hogben, for one of the accused, submitted that there was no evidence for the case to go before a jury. Undoubtedly these men had committed an offence, but in order to substantiate a charge of theft there must be definite evidence of an intention to steal the car. “The present case,” said counsel, “was nothing more than the conversion of a car.” Addressing the jury, His Honour said: “Under the Crimes Act it is required to prove not only that an article has been taken illegally, but also that it has been taken with intent to convert it to the use of the person who has taken it. The person taking it must in law, as the law at present stands, have intended to deprive tho owner of its value.

“It would seem,” continued his Honour, “that as our law stands in New Zealand at the present time, if a man opens a garage and drives about in a car which he intends to return he has not committed theft. Technically speaking, therefore, the evidence to be given by the Crown in this case falls short. It is to my mind a question whether some amendment of the Crimes Act should not be made in order to make this a crime, and, as such, punishable by indictment. ‘ ‘ It would appear that at present the position is that proceedings suitable to this case can only be taken in the Magistrate’s Court. This is not a satisfactory position; far from it. However, it is my duty to direct you in the case before you to return a verdict of not guilty. It is an unsatisfactory position, but there is no alternative.” Without leaving their seats the jury immediately returned a verdict as directed by the judge, and tho accused were discharged. The charge against them was that on August 7 last (hey broke into a motor garage in Remuera aid stole a motor car valued at £3OO,