CONVICTION UPHELD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17754, 13 April 1921, Page 8

CONVICTION UPHELD.

FORTUNE-TELUNG CASE,

THE POWERS OF •''ARGUS."

DISMISSAL OF APPEAL,

Tho conviction recorded in the Police Court by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., against Charles Louis Copciand for having undertaken to tell futures at a public performance at tho Hippodromo Theatre on December 30 last, in conjunction with his eleven year-old' son Argus, was upheld by Mr. Justice- Adams in the Supremo Court yesterday, when His Honor dismissed tho appeal of Copciand against the conviction. Mr. Fleming appeared for appellant, ajid the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. It. Meredith, for tho informant in tho earlier case, DetectiveSergeant Cummings.

Hiß Honor said ho agreed with the magistrate that «,n intention to deceive wa*i not an ingredient of tho offence. In his opinion,, section 261 of tho Crimes Act dealt with three classes of offences, and for tho purposes of tho appeal tho section should bo read : "Every one _is liable to one year's imprisonment with hard labour who undertakes to tell futures." A Wrong judicial decision in appellant's favour was that of Mr. Justice Edwards, who, in the anneal case of McGrath v. Vino, hod held that thcro must bo an intention to deceive if an offenco was to bo proved. His Honor said ho could not follow this decision for tho following reasons: (1) The phrase "undertakes t6 tell futures" did not appear to him to import fraud or deceit; (2) Tho case Regina v. Entwistlo wa6 decided upon section 4 of tho Vagrancy Act, 1824, in which tho offence was "pretending or professing," not "undertaking" to tell fortunes; (3) Tho Regina v. Entwistlo case was not an authority for construction of section 261 of tho Crimes Act; (4) Mr. Justice Avery, in the case Davis v. Cuny, 1918, had said' that il the Legislature forbado a thing, it mattered not that tho defendant believed he could do it. The mischief intended to be remedied by the section in "question, said His Honor, was the injur mus eifoct upon the minds of credulous persons, of attempts to pierce the veil of tho fntero ny predictions not based upon ascertainable facts or according to reason. This mischief was as great in the case of the honest diviner as in the caso of the fraudulent charlatan. "In my opinion," His Honor continued, "tho offenco of undertaking to tell fortunes is complete when a person, whether honestly believing in his power to do so or intending to deceive, undertakes to tell another person's future. I do not think the effect of this will be that every porson who cuts tho cards or reads the leaves in a tea oup for the private amusement of himself'or his friends will riln tho risk of prosecution. In such cases there is no undertaking to toll fortunes ua the senso of the statute." Costrwcre fixed at £10 10s.