Curious Share Deal

Manawatu Times, Volume 65, Issue 245, 16 October 1940, Page 7

Curious Share Deal

CHARGE OF THEFT WITHDRAWN t BY JUDGE Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 15. : A verdict of “not guilty’’ was rc--6 turned by the jury in the case against Donald Ottrey Austin Knight, salesman '• jin the Supreme Court. Knight was ' I charged with theft in failing to account 2 j "or moneys received from the sale of I shares in Lange’s Mobile Gas Producer e Ltd. 1 The verdict was returned at the V direction of Mr. Justice Nouthcroft I after Robert Stewart Lange had admit--3 ted when cross-examined that Knight 1 was entitled to sell shares transferred 3 to him by Lange. The case for 'the de--3 fence was not called. J The charges against Knight were that r be committed theft in failing to account : for moneys received for shares on terms t requiring him to account for them to • Lange’s Mobile Gas Producer Ltd They concerned £6O obtained from ■ Arthur Shaw on December 7, 1929 and l £4O on January 15, £lO from James Mayo, of Ouruhia, on December 8 and £SO from Richard William Gill, of Blenheim, on December 13. Questioned by Mr. C. S. Thomas, counsel for Knight, about the transfer of 400 shares by him to Knight, Lauge, managing director of Lange’s Mobile Gas Ltd., Christchurch, said that on his part no “trickery’’ was intended. - j His Honour: You knew the document i was not genuine. i Lange: As far as I was concerned it was genuine. It was so that he would j be entitled to sell, j His Honour: Entitled to sell? i Lange: I didn’t really mean that, i His Honour: The transactions meant either that. Knight was buying shares

he paid for in future and that he was entitled 'to sell, or it was a trick. You say it wasn’t a trick. Lange: That’s so.

His Honour then said he could not take the case any further, and counsel agreed that lie should address the jury. The case has taken an unusual turn, said his Honour <to the jury. Witness had to acknowledge either that tho transfer of 400 of his shares to Knight was a trick of humbug to mislead prospective investors or that it was a genuine transfer to Knight to be jrnid for later. Tho Crown set out to prove that Knight had no shares of his own to sell, only the company’s shares which he had to account for. If in addition ho was tho owner of shares to sell he could do what he liked with the money he received though morally and legally he would have to pay Lange for the shares transferred to him.

“It appears that the Crown cannot take the case further and that dishonesty has not been proven. You can take it as a direction from me that there is no evidence to justify you in finding him guilty,” said his Honour. Without retiring tho jury found Knight not guilty.