COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Witness, Issue 3526, 11 October 1921, Page 19

COURT OF APPEAL

Yv ELLINGTON, October 8. The Appeal Court gave judgment in the case of .Benjamin Server, who was round guilty at Dunedin of breaking and entering and theft, reducing the sentence from file years’ reformative detention to two years’ reformative detention. The grounds of appeal from Mr Justice Sim’s sentence were that prisoner was a first offender, and that no notic-o was taken of the jury's recommendation for leniency. The court gave judgment m several other cases of appeals by prisoners from sentences imposed in tile Supreme Court-, and in each case the sentence was considerably reduced. In the case of Allan Raymond George lire sentence was reduced from three years with hard labour to two years with hard labour. George had pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy. The sentence on Percival ilhvs Win grove, who was found guilty of making a false declaration under the Marriage Act, was reduced from three to two years’ reformative treatment. The court also gave judgment in the ease of the King versus lloscoe and Holland, a case stated for the opinion of the Appeal Court by Mr Justice Reed. Roscoe and Holland had been charged with theft, and the questions for the court were as to the correctness of the direction given by the trial judge to the jury, and as to the meaning of the verdict. The court was of opinion that the direction to the jury was obviously wrong, as being calculated to give a wrong impression as to the view they should take of the onus of proof. The verdict of the jury, however, was not one of not guilty, us it did not negative the essential element of tile offence charged. The court was of the opinion that on tlio ground of misdirection to the jury the verdict should be set aside, and a new trial ordered at the next criminal sessions in Wellington. [The jury’s verdict was ono of guilty, with'a recommendation for leniency oil the ground that there was insufficient proof that accused did not intend to pay for the goods. The direction challenged was if the jury were satisfied of the removal of the goods by the accused without the manager’s knowledge the onus of disproving dishonesty rested on the prisoner.]