CONSPIRACY CHARGE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 141, 19 May 1925, Page 11

CONSPIRACY CHARGE

MANUREWA CREAMERY CASE

BOTH MEN FOUND GUILTY. The trial of Francis A. Parker and John 0. Wood on charges of defrauding the New Zealand Dairy Company was concluded before Mr Justice Alpers, in the Supreme Court at Auckland last Friday. Accused were charged in the first instance with conspiracy to defraud; and more specially with having obtained £6 from the company by falsely representing that Wood had supplied 28451 b. of cream to the company's Manurewa creamery between November 21 and November 29, 1924. A statement made by Parker to Detective Lambert contained an admission that lie had taken Wood’s word as to the quantity of cream lie had supplied, but that he was not aware the figures so furnished were favourable to Wood. Further, he said he had received no payment from Wood, and there was no arrangement between them that Wood should receive credit for more than he supplied, in consideration of assistance given at the creamery. Wood’s statement to the detective admitted the existence of a system under which Parker credited him with undelivered cream in recognition of assistance given in the work at the creamery. He declared that Parker had not received any part of the £6 drawn from the company as the result of the arrangement. For nearly an hour the counsel wero in consultation with His Honour in Chambers upon law-points. On returning to Court, counsel agreed to dispense with evidence, and leave the whole case to His Honour.

A NICE MENTAL DISTINCTION. Mr Justice Alpers directed the jury that Wood’s statement to the detective would warrant his conviction on the second count. That statement, however, was not evidence against Parker, because it was not a sworn- statement, and. in a British Court a man could only be tried upon, evidence given on oath in the witness box, and so open to cross-examination. “You will have,” said His Honour, “to arrange your brains in a series of pigeon-holes, and put into one pigeonhole Wood’s statement and then shut the door upon it and proceed to deal .with the case of Parker as though /that statement were non-existent. You will have to deal with the case of Parker as though the moment Woods had made the statement he had dropped dead.”

Examining tho case against Parker. His Honour pointed out that accused admitted neglect to make the entries of Wood’s cream at the proper time, but stated he afterwards made them from memory. That, however, was not fraul, although it amounted to gross carelessness or negligence. The jury might find it difficult to shut out of their minds Wood’s statement, and to avoid the conclusi on that Parker’s negligence was fraudulent, but whatever suspicions might be drawn from the circumstances admitted by Parker himslf, tlire was no evidence except the bare fact that the figures entered were wrong. The jury would not be safe in finding Parker guilty on the evidence.

A DIFFICULT POSITION. With regard to the count for conspiracy. tins same position arose. It took two men to conspire. If the juiy could not convict Parker of conspiracy, neither could they convict Wood. The position was difficult—almost unprecedented —but such was the position under.the law.

The jury found both the prisoners guilty of conspiracy, and found "Wood guilty on tho second count, with a recommendation to mercy. Counsel for Parker asked for leave to move to the Court of Appeal for a new trial, on tho ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence as regards the conspiracy charge. He also asked His Honour "to reserve the question of law that there was no evidence against Parker on the charge of conspiracy, and therefore the Judge should either have withdrawn the case from the jury, or have directed tho jury to find a verdict of not guilty in respect of Parker, tho result of which would be that the verdict against Wood must also fail.

His Honour acceded to the application, and deferred sentence pending argument upon tho points in the Court of Appeal.