POSSESSION OF A WATCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18435, 15 June 1920, Page 6

POSSESSION OF A WATCH.

[Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, June 14. In the case of Charles Joseph Stone, who was previously found not guilty on a charge of theft, but guilty on a charge of receiving a watch not knowing that it was stolen at the time he received it, though he did know it was stolen before the detective visited him, the Court of Appeal had found that the verdict was in effect not guilty of receiving in terms of the indictment, and recommended a new trial with an amended incident. To-day * Stone was charged with having in his possession a watch that ho knew had been dishonestly obtained, and that by converting it to his own use ho stole it. His counsel pleaded the former acquittal, but Mr Justice Chapman ruled that there was no evidence to support this plea. On counsel urging an English precedent the Judge said: "I havo ruled that there is no evidence to support your plea. I don't care what proceeding I follow." A plea of not guilty was entered, and tho case is being tried.