FORTUNE TELLING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13625, 19 December 1907, Page 6

FORTUNE TELLING.

''A SUBTLE CRAFT."

A WELLINGTON JUDGMENT.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

Wellington, Wednesday. At the Magistrate's Court to-day Mr. Riddell, S.M., delivered judgment in the case of the police, v. Lily Krause. Defendant was charged on two counts, (1) that she did undertake to tell fortune*, and (2) that she did use a subtle craft by palmistry to deceive and impose on Charles Dunnet William Pender and others.

His Worship considered that the first charge had been proved. An offence was created by section 240 of the criminal code and section 49 of the Indictable Offences Act gave a magistrate or justice power to treat the matter summarily and to inflict a lighter penalty than that set out in the code. Counsel for the defence had contended that there was no distinction between the present case and for-tune-telling at private parties. The case of Regina v. Entwhistle, cited by both sides, however, drew a distinction, and practically decided that there was no deception in fortune-telling at private parties. Defendant would be convicted on the first charge, and fined 40s and costs, in default seven days' imprisonment.

With regard to the second information His Worship said the facts were the same, but section 50 of the Indictable Offences Act, under which the information was laid, assumed an offence, but did not create one. Counsel had argued that there was no creation of such an offence in any New Zealand statute. By the Imperial Vagrancy Act, 5, George IV., every person using any subtle craft, means, or device by palmistry or otherwise to deceive and impose on any of Bis Majesty's subjects was deemed a rogue and a vagabond, ' and was liable to a penalty. That Ait, by virtue of the English Laws Act, 1858, was in force in New Zealand until 1866. In that year the Now Zealand Legislature passed a Vagrants Act, containing a number of clauses appearing in the Imperial Act, but omitting the one creating the offence alleged in the present information. The Vagrants Act of 1866 was in turn repealed by the Police Offences Act, 1884, but again no provision was made for any clause creating an offence where a person used any subtle craft to deceive and impose on others. The implication therefore was that the clause in section 4, of 5, George IV., had been repealed by the Vagrants Act of 1866, and never re-enact-ed. There being thus, in His Worship's opinion, no offence, the information would be dismissed.