COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5558, 8 April 1905, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

YESTERDAY. A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE. Yesterday the Court of Appeal, consisting of the Chief Justice, Justices Williams, Denniston, Edwards, ( and Cooper, gave judgment on a Crown case reserved by Mr Justico Denniston at the Christchurch criminal sittings on November 15th, 1904, at the trial of a man named Thomas Lawrence. The prisoner was indicted for having counselled and procured ono William Henry Sutcliffe to unlawfully use an instrument for the purpose of procuring abortion. At the trial, the question arose as to whether a certain original telegram handed in at Wellington, and produced by an officer of the Telegraph Department, was admissible. The telegram was addressed to the girl on board tho Tarawera, and, though unsigned, was endorsed “T. Hood,” tho name under which it was proved tho accused was travelling. No proof was offered as to tho handwriting or any further evidence to connect tho accused with tho telegram. The telegram, which stated, ‘‘Answer no questions., Pansy. On my way to you,” was tendered in evidence by tho Crown, but 'objected to by counsel for tho defence es not being properly connected with tho accused. The Judge admitted tho telegram, but reserved the question of its admissibility for tho Court of Appeal. The accused was convicted, and sentence deferred. The Chief Justice, in tho course of his judgment, said that unless the evidence was such that no ono else could have sent tho telegram, tho mope production of it was not evidence that tho accused had sent it. Ho was of opinion that tho evidence did not show tins, and that tho telegram was not properly admitted. In his opinion, a new trial must be ordered. The other members of the Court ■agreed that the telegram was inadmissible, and that a new trial must bo ordered. A WANGANUI CASE. The Court next gave judgment in a Crown case reserved by the Chief Justice from the Wonganui criminal sessions on February 20th of the present year, at tho trial of a man . named James Sweeney. The accused was indicted with one Alfred Wardle for the theft of £6B from a man named John Bamfield, at Taihape. Wardle pleaded guilty to receiving part of the money, the Crown acoepting that pica, and Sweeney set up tho defenoo that ho had received part ■of tho stolen money, £6, from Wardle, not knowing that it had been stolen. Tho main evidence against Sweeney was that on tho day after tho loss of the money—which consisted of twelve £5 notes and eight £1 notes—ho had paid a bootmaker at Taihape for a pair of boots with a £o note, which formed, part of the money ho had received from Wardle, and that two days later, on hearing that Wardle had been arrested on a charge of stealing this money, he had gone to tho bootmaker and asked for the return of tho £5 note, giving him five £1 notes in its place. Counsel for the defenoo explained this by saying that Sweeney desired to destroy all evidence against his friend. The jury, on special issues put, found Sweeney guilty of receiving £5 from the bootmaker, Eskesen, knowing that it had been dishonestly obtained by Wardle; also with, being an accessory after the fact. The question for the Court was as to whether the prisoner had been properly convicted. Tho Chief Justice held that the conviction of the prisoner for, receiving stolen goods could not he sustained; neither could the conviction under subsection 1 of section 75 of the Criminal Code. The conviction must bo set aside, and the accused bo discharged. The other members of the. Court concurred. ' The Court adjourned until May 6th.