COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 7487, 27 May 1885, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

Tuesday, Mat 26, (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Johnston, and Mr Justice Williams.) BEQINA V. W. W. TATLOE. This was tbe second case reserved iq the trial o! tbe indictments against W. W. Taylor, The prisoner was indictel under the 79 :h section of the Larceny Act for the fraudulent appropriation of a large number of Bank of New Zealand shares, of which be was alleged be a trustee tor the ase and benefit of others. The indictment contaiaed 75 counts, charging the prisoner with the appropriation of the shares of tbe several legatees in different ways. The fads as proved were these James May died in England possessed of 1014 shares of the Bank of New Zealand, These shares tyere by the will divided among ft number of legatee", but the numbers of tbe shares were not specifically mentioned, - The prisoner obtained probate of the will fa New Zealand upon the production of the exemplification of tbe letters of administration, with will annexed, granted in England. It was proved that on tbe 14th June, 1882, tbe prisoner made a declaration for tbe purpose of obtaining a transfer in bis own name, that James May was at bU death the proprietor of the shares. Transfers of tbe whole of these shares were produced, some to purchasers who bought from the prisoner through a broker, some to persons to whom the prisoner was privately indebted, and a few to some of the legatees. A copy of tbe Bank’s deed of settlement was put in by consent, and the Bank share register from tbe head office, which contained entries of the whole of these transfers, and had the names of the transferrers registered as holders of the shares. It was also proved that soma of the transferrers bad since received dividends on their share?. There were entries in tbe prisoner's books, id his handwriting, of the receipt of dividends (while be held tbe shares) on account of tbe several legatees. Evidence was also given that tbe prisoner bad forwarded one of the legatees a transfer of certain of May’s shares—giving their numbers—to him to sign, and also a power of attorney to eign, in order that the legatee might bo registered as proprietor of the shares. These documents were duly executed aud forwarded to the pciaoner, who did not register the transfer, but subsequently transferred the same shares to someone else. Evidence was given of the prisoner’s admission that he bad not transferred any shares to tbe English legatees, but had ireJ them for his own purposes, and that be bad admitted in his exaurnitioa in bis baakiuptcy proceedings that he became possessed of May’s shares, and that there was no necessity to sell them. The prisoner was convicted on all couats but four, in which tbe Judge directed an acquits! Counsel for the prisoner contended that the share register was Improperly admitted In evidence, and this question was reserved for the opinion of the Court of Appeal Another question as to whether the probate was properly admitted was reserved, but was abandoned in the argument. Mr Shaw and Mr Gully for the prisoner. The prosecution was under the 79:h section of tbe Larceny Act Tbe shares were specifically bequeathed to certain persons, the legatees, and Taylor acted either as executor cr as trustee, not as both* [His Honor the Chief Justice : He acted as executor, and as each was properly described in the indictment as ft trustee.] If he acted as an executor be could not be convicted, as he hod power to realise the shares, and account lor the proceeds afterwards. [Mr Justice Johnston : That point was reserved, and we cannot go into it.] The other point is as to the admission of tbe share register. The Bank of New Zealand is not a company under the Companies Act by which a share register is prima facie evidence of tbe entries contained in it, but is incorporated under a special Act, which has no such provision. Tbe register does not prove itself, and no evidence was given of tbe entries contained in it. The Bank deed of settlement requires that holders of shares shall sign the deed (section 23). [Mr Justice Johnston: If there is sufficient satisfactory evidence, tbe svidence objected to can be rejected. Hassell on Crimes, 819.] There are authorities against that. Preface by Mr Justice Denman to 1 Den. 0.Q., Harllng’s case (Moo. 0.0., 39). It is for the jury to say whether there was sufficient evidence, and this Court will not weigh questions of evidence. The share register was simply an Index to tbe shareholders. Tbe execution of tbe deed of settlement was not proved. If tbe register was not legal evidence, the Court cannot eliminate this evidence and say that the jury mast have come to tbe same conclusion without it. Some one juryman, may have 'been nfUen«;d by it. The Attorney-General aqt}

Mr Jelllcoe for tbe Crown : Tb© share r vaa admissible against tbo Bank that thev ha 1 assented to the transfer. If it was admUihle on one point, that is sufficient. After this entry the Bank could not declare a forfeiture. The entry as to the transmission to Taylor corresponds with hia declaration, and it is relied ou by tbe Crown as proving the transmission to Taylor. Upon the transfer cf tbe shares the commission of them was complete. The Bank books have been taken to prove the facts in English cases. Breton v. Cope, Peake 43 ; Marsh v. Collett, 2 Esp. C 65. Taylor’s own admissions were sufficient, without the Bank register. Mr Shaw in reply : The execution of the transfers was not a conversion. It is merely an application to the Bank to transfer the eharea. Judgment was reserved. 4 This was tbe la*t caso on the list, and the Court adjourned till Friday next at 11 a.m., when the reserved judgments will be delivered.