COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13304, 10 October 1906, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL.

A SOLICITOR'S CONVICTION, ■ .. .. .. ■; .. ' MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. [BY telegraph.—press ASSOCIATION.] . ' Wellington-, Tuesday. • The Court, of Appeal, consisting of tht " Chief Justice, Sir Robert: Stout (presiding), and Judges; Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, began. the hearing of the case of Rex v. Binges. This was a motion for a new trial, on tlie ground that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence. j§gi The prisoner, Francis Henry Bruges, was a ' i||l solicitor, practising in Christchurch. About eight months ago he became bankrupt, and- " when his affairs had been investigated ' charges of theft were preferred against him ivt'l and his managing , clerk, James Goodman. , They were indicted jointly at the last' criminal sittings, at Christ church., before Mr. Jus- • tice Cooptr, were both found guilty, and were each sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. Leuve was given to Bruges to apply to the Court of Appeal MM for a new tiial. . s Mr. T (J. Russell (of Christchurch),. who ' appeared for the appellant, contended that !■ there was 110 evidence to show that Bruges ■ m had any knowledge of the misappropriations of money which were made by Goodman. He had in his practice as a solicitor conducted an extensive money-lending business for clients, but had left that department en- |p tirely to Goodman, end had lrmself attended . to the strictly legal, part of his business:: |,>j Goodman had operated 011 the bank account,and had drawn money in his name; and paid '■$£§ i.i moneys he had received. It was not '. until some of his cliques were returned din- ■ honoured that he began to suspect that Goodman was ; acting dishonestly, and he then dismissed him. Continuing his- argu- ■' / ment, Mr. Russell contended that the evi- ' dence given on bf half of the Crown, to &how. J Jjf v that Bruges had knowledge of theft commit- p ' ted by Goadman ir 1898 and in 1905, wu wrongly admitted against Bruges, and, fur.';-;, tiler.' that even if rightly admitted it did S\ 5 not show that Bulges had knowledge 61//* Goodman's theft in those years, and from that evidence the jury could not reasonably infer that Bruges had guilty knowledge of the acts of Goodman in 1901, which were the acts charged in the indictment. . ; The Chief Justice: It is the course of conduct extending over some years from which the jury may have inferred that Bruges had knowledge of Goodman's dishonesty. If ... there had been on isolated act, or one or two acts, on Goodman's part, then the jliry could * not from the evidence have inferred know- ' ledge 011 Bruges' part, but where these arts 1 extended over eight or nine years the jury may well have inferred that Bruges 1 had knowledge of them. ' Mr. ' Russell concluded' at half-past eleven' £1$ a.m. * ■ 1 *' -' " ' Mr. Myers (for the Crown) contended that ' |l|§! the evidence was enough to show knowledge' * - 011 the part of Bruges of Goodman's acts. Mr. Myers further contended that although . :|M§ the indictment merely charged the prisoner : with theft, : and was ostensibly laid under section 218 of the criminal code, evidence ' could be given, and he could be convicted of theft under sections 220 and 222 of the cole. There was, however, evidence from '■ which 'the jury could have reasonably inferred that he was guilty of the theft described ill section 128. The jury were • entitled to take finto consideration the long ; course of dishonest dealing by Goodman, Bruges being in the office all the time, and having notice that chcques drawn on trust moneys were dishonoured. M'f. Russell briefly replied, and judgment l . was reserved. ' ADJOURNED. : The case of Cowlisliaw and others v. the Christchurch Press Company,! Limited, and another, was then , called on, but owing to 1 Mi-; Russell, who appeared for the- defend-, ants, not being properly instructed', the' case was adjourned till a later date. • --- MEANING OF A WILL. ( Sir Robert Stout, Judges Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, then commenced the hearing of the. case of St. . Hill and another v. St. Hill. This was an originating summons to determine the meaning of certain \|| provisions of the will of Ashton St. Hill, -I deceased, removed into the Court of Appeal, for - determination. ' 'Hie plaintiffs were Charles Henry St. Hill and Henry Hadfield, the trustees of the will, and the plaintiff ' ' was Kathe:;ine Harriette St. Hill, the wife of the deceased testator. The testator in 1886.became separated from his wife (the de- ' fendant), aiid covenanted by deed to pay her an annuity. In 1897, by a substituted deed, the testator covenanted that in case his wife V', should survive him his executors should, within six months of his death, pay to her the sum of £3000. In 1901 the. testator in '"K? 1 his will directed that a legacy of £3000 should be ,?iven to his wife, in lieu of the ' annuity. / The question raised by the summons was whether this legacy of £3000 was . -;&! in lieu of the £3000 covenanted to be paid to the defendant if she should survive the. testator, or whether it was in addition to the sum so covenanted to be paid.' " Mr. H. I>. Bell arid Mr. Graham appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.. Martin Chapman '/ for' the defendant. j Mr. Bell opened the case for the plaintiffs, and contended that the will showed that it was the intention of the testator' that. his widow should have, the legacy in lieu of the' - amount under the deed. Mr. Bell had not ' ? ' concluded his argument when the Court ad- ,-i • journed until to-morrow morning.