CONVICTION BY JURY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21263, 17 August 1932, Page 13

CONVICTION BY JURY

CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD

LEAVE FOR APPEAL SOUGHT

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION

Yarious aspects of the 'case for the Crown against Reginald Clarence Williams, aged 45, who was convicted by a jury of conspiring to defraud, were argued before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday, when counsel for accused applied to reserve a question of law to tho Court of Appeal, and, alternatively, for leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a new trial. Williams and Clifford Spencer Dahlin, aged 37, were convicted on a charge of conspiring with others to defraud George Montague Poyner, farmer, of Waiotira, of £I2OO, on August 21, 1931, and Dahlin was sentenced in the Court last week to imprisonment for four years.

Counsel for accused said it had been established that it was tho duty of a Crown Prosecutor to draw attention to any serious defect iu tho Crown evidence. It was true that the Crown Prosecutor had pointed out that tho chief witness, -Poyner, could not identify accused at an identification parade or in the Police Court at Whangarei. However, His Honor had i-eferred to a statement made by one of tho accused as of the same value as counsel's addresses. Ho had not exempted the particular statement mado by the Crown Prosecutor, thus taking away its value in the eyes of tho jury. Counsel continued that Poyner later said ho recognised Williams in the dock. However, ho submitted that the dock was not the proper place for identification, as it placed accused by himself. His Honor: Tho Crown cannot help placing him in the dock at Court. Counsel referred to a case which came before the Court of Criminal Appeal in England, and said it had laid down that a scries of photographs should be shown to a witness when the polico were seeking a clue. His Honor should havo commented upon the fact that a witness was shown a photograph and later called upon to identify accused in a parade. Counsel contended further that there was not sufficient evidence in the Crown case to warrant the case being left to tho jury by His Honor. No single overt act showed that accused was implicated in the fraud.

"The caso is remarkable by reason of the emphasis ■which -was placed on the fact that accused was nob identified," said the Crown Prosecutor, who opposed the application Ho contended that, generally speaking, tho Court could act only by way of reserving a question of law. There was only one question of law, and that was whether there was evidenco of identification which could go beforo tho jury. Referring to tho application for a new trial, His Honor said it must bo shown that the weight of evidence was against the conviction. .As 110 evidence was called for the defenco, the Crown evidence must be weighed to consider whether accused, who acted the part of a taxi-driver, had knowledge of the fraud. His Honor said ho would give his finding this morning.