APPEAL COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 100, 29 April 1908, Page 8

APPEAL COURT.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS

[press association.]

WELLINGTON, April 29

The Court of Appeal gave judgment yesterday in the case Rex v. Beeson, criminal libel, that- it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove at the trial that an order authorising the prosecution had been made by the magistrate under scetion 59 of the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1901; so long as the order was duly made (as it was in this case) that was sufficient. The conviction was affirmed.

The Court then took the case Rex

v. Tustin. I"he defendant was convicted under the Bankruptcy Act of failing to keep proper books, and contracting debts when he gave no reasonable probability of being able to pay them; but the jury expressly found that ha .was not guilty of anyfraudulent'intent. The question was reserved for the higher Court whether "fraud was a necessary ingredient in the offence charged. There was also •another question, of the admission of a deposition. Mr-Neave * appeared for the appellant, and Mr Myers for the Crown. Without calling on the latter the Court decided that fraudulent intent was not necessary to constitute the offences charged against the appellant, and.affirmed the conviction.

In Rex v. Hurland, an appeal against a conviction at Auckland for Interference with a girl under the age of consent, the Court also affirmed the conviction. A telegram was re<jeived from the prisoner's counsel stating that he did not wish to go further with the appeal, but the Court considered that they should Tiear the case.

The Court next had before it an application by Frank Sales for a new trial. Sales had been convicted at Christchurch of breaking and entering, and on the question of identification leave was granted to apply for a new trial. The case had not concluded when the Court adjourned.

Later. Judgment was reserved in the case Rex v. Sales.

_In Rex v. Black and others, convicted of breaking and entering at Wanganui, counsel for the Crown admitted that the evidence was insuffi•cent to support the conviction, which was therefore quashed.