WITHDRAWN FROM THE JURY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19550, 5 August 1925, Page 10

WITHDRAWN FROM THE JURY

A TRIVIAL OFFENCE. JUDGE’S UNUSUAL ACTION. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, August 4. The unusual course of withdrawing a case from the jury was taken by Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court to-day in the trial of Stanley Forbes Gough Williams, for defrauding the Crown by selling stock and chattels covered by a bill of sale. Mr Paterson, for the Crown, said that Williams was a soldier settler who, in 1920, took up a corner section and received considerable advances for the purchase of stock and implements. He gave bills of sal© to the Crown over his chattels and stock. In October 1921, he wrote to the Commissioner of Crown Lands stating that he had sold some of his stock and had used the money to buy other stock. The Commissioner replied that all the money received from the sale of stock had to be remitted to the Crown Lands Office direct, and explained that the money could be readvanced in January, 1923. The Commissoner wrote to Williams asking if he had branded all his stock according to the requirements of the bill of sale. Williams replied .that he had. Later the Crown Lands ranger visited the property and found that some of the stock mentioned in the bill of sale were missing. In August, 1924, the accused, who had then left his holding, wrote to the Commissioner stating that he had sold some of the, stock in order to keep going. He also complained that the Government had not carried out its obligations, and stated that he had lost £450 of his own money as well as four years’ work. Mr W. W. Barton, fields inspector for the Crown Lands Department', said that of the 32 head of stock originally bought for the accused there were nine on the place when he made his last inspection. The accused might have said to him that some of the stock had been lost.

The accused, in evidence, gave details of his dealings in cattle since 1923. He had sold some cows for a total of £ls 17s 6d, and he used the money in living and working expenses. When, he left the farm he took away only £3 or £4 in money and his blankets. He started on the section with £220 capital, and the first year’s working showed a profit of £6. The second, year ho was £2O to the good, but the third year there was a loss of £219. He also made losses in the two following years. His Honor said that it seemed that there could be no defence to the charge. The matter was more or Jess trivial as far as the amount involved was concerned. It was probable that the Crown did not realise the amount was so small when the information was laid. There was no doubt that technically an offence had been committed. Mr Paterson said he was prepared to admit it was a trivial technical offence. His Honor said that he did not propose to go further with the matter and place the indignity of a conviction on the accused. He would withdraw the case from the jury and not ask for a verdict. The accused would bo discharged.