THE SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17255, 3 September 1919, Page 9

THE SUPREME COURT.

SESSIONS AT HAMILTON,

VERY LIGHT CALENDAR.

:hakge of fraud fails. [BT TELEGRAPH.—-OWN' CORRESPOKDEhT.j HAMILTON. Tuesday. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Jourt were opened by Mr. Justice Cooper o-day. In his charge to the grand jury His Honor congratulated the district upon the ilmost total absence of serious crime, and said he hoped it was the beginning of a lew era. AfW the heavy sessions of the jast it was refreshing to find such a light list. True bills were returned in the following cases : —Frederick Edward Home alleged false pretences; Barnard Ganderion, alleged breaking and entering and theft. Frederick Edward Home (Mr. Rogers) pleaded not guilty to three charges of obtaining money by falsely representing that he was an agent- of the Income Tax Department. An officer of the Department said th« Department had no agent Felling books. Henry Robert John Southee. farmer, of Walton, said the accused railed upon him and tried to sell the " Farmers' Bookkeeper " and the "Farmer's Law- Book." Accused said he was representing the Land and Income Tax Department, ami was selling the books to farmers. ' He said he had sold about 400 books in Mat.imata. Two inspectors, he said, were going to inspect farmers' books, and purchasers of the books would have their returns made up free for five years. He indicated that witn?es would get into serious trouble if he did not have similar books. 'to be on the safe side witness purchased a book. Witness would not have madp the purchase if accused had not said he represented the Department. Accused said he was Buffering from neurit!.-', and the Department had given him that position because, being a farmer, he would be a suitable person to sell the books to farmers. William Gardner, farmer, Walton, deposed to having a similar interview with accused, and said he bought both books At a subsequent meeting of the Farmer*;' Union witness heard accused say that he had not said he represented the Department. Cross-examined, witness said that accused was indignant at the meeting, and said hie principals had misled him. L. H. McAlpine, secretary of the Morrinsville branch of the Farmers' Union, said he attended a meeting of the Walton branch at which accused was presen'. Accused denied any intention of trving to mislead, and quoted from his principals' instructions. He said he would discontinue canvassing. Accused said that in December last he answered an advertisement, and was appointed a. canvasser for the New Zealand - | Farmers' Law Book Company. He was , given written instructions. When can- . . vassing witness entered into a general coni ! vereation first and then stated the comi pany he represented. He said the book j was drafted by the Government to let tho farmers see what laws they had to com pi v with. The book-keeping book was for use in connection with income tax. At no time did he say he represented the Income Tax Department, but did say the Department would make up purchasers' returns free for five years. He told all purchasers that it was compulsory for all farmers to keep proper books. " He believed that what was stated in his instructions was correct. Before attending the Farmers' Union meeting he telegraphed to his principals asking if the Department would make up the returns for five years. As the reply was indefinite witness went to Wellington to his principals and demanded to knew why he had been given instructions which had been denied. On his rei turn to Morrinsville witness received a telegram from Smith, one of the principals, since sentenced to imprisonment, saying "go on as you are .going. We have the authority of the Commissioner of Taxes in writing.'" Witness then decided to take Mr. McAlpme's ad-- ice and stop canvassing. Since January witners had not sold any more books. Smith met witness later in Hamilton and gave him amended instructions. Witness had no intention of defrauding farmers. i Cross-examined, accused said he was not I instructed to say that he represented the Department. Addressing the jury, counsel for the defence submitted that the instructions had been drawn up with a vie v to del liberateI.}'1.}' deceiving the canvasser. The i first instructions had the words ' lacome I Tax Department," whereas the amended : instructions said " income tax department of the company," showing plainly that the company intended deceiving its canvassers. Who would connect the Income ' : Tax Department with a company . I The jury in returning a verdict of not 1 guilty, said they ivere of opinion that ac- ! cused had been misled by his principal's ' . instructions, and had had no fraudulent ' intentions. They also thought the witnesses were under a misapprehension as ' to prisoner's statements. | The prisoner was discharged.