SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3830, 9 August 1927, Page 28

SUPREME COURT.

. z CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, August 2. . (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) His Honor Mr Justice Sim presided over the quarterly criminal sittings e£ the Supreme Court on Tuesday. GRAND JURY. The following Grand Jury was empanelled :—Robert W. M. Greenslade, James Kelleher, Francis M. Harraway, Thomas Scollay, Peter Boyd, John K. Macfie, James W. Smeaten, Reginald Patterson, James H. Walker, Samuel P. Mirams. David Tannock, Charles Speight, John Meenan, Paul Apstcin, Archibald Smellie, Robert E. Davidson, Walter M'Ewan, Charles H. Russell, George Manson, Arthur H. Fisher, Donald M. Stuart, Gordon Abernethy, Thomas C. Conll HIS HONOR’S ADDRESS. His Honor, in his address to the Grand Jury, said that there were eight cases for their consideration, involving charges against 13 persons. There was, however, only one case, he thought, in which they would have any difficulty. Ka all the others he could not think they would have any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that a true bill should be found.

His Honor said it was very doubtful whether a true bill should be found against Henry Albert Park, who was charged, with having fraudulently stated that he had posted at Ashburton a postal packet containing a money order. The Grand Jury retired at 10.59 -and relumed at 12.18 with true bills against all the accused except Park, who was discharged.

The Foreman said the grand jurors wished to express their satisfaction with the postal officials, and to say that no stigma attached to the staff at Ashburton. The statement had been made that one of the officials might have taken the money out of a letter. His Honor said he thought they all agreed that the postal service was run admirably. As Park had admitted that he had made a mistake, any suggestion against any postal official disappeared at once. BREAKING AND, ENTERING. Thomas Alexander Tobin and Edwin Tobin were charged with breaking and entering the warehouse of H. C. Campbell, Ltd., by night, with intent t° commit a crime. The accused, who were defended by Mr C J. L. White, pleaded not guilty. Mr J. B. Adams, Crown Prosecutor, said the jury had to decide whether the accused did break and enter Mr Campbell’s warehouse, and whether they entered it with the intention to commit a crime therein. All the Crown could place before the jury was that it was fair to assume, from the presence of the accused in the warehouse at the early hour in the

morning when they were discovered, that they were there with the intention of committing a crime. The explanation given by the accused when they were found in the warehouse was that they had gone there for a sleep, and the jury would have to say whether they were prepared to accept that explanation. The accused had said that the door had not been locked, but the evidence showed that the door was locked, and therefore on this point the accused had lied. Evidence was then taken. Mr White, addressing the jury on behalf of the two accused, said the men were charged with breaking into premises with intent to commit a crime. That they were on the premises could not be denied, but the case hinged on the question of intent. The Crown only hinted that the men went to the store for the purpose of thieving. It was not necessary for the Crown to prove what the crime was, but the Crown must prove that the men went there to commit a crime. The evidence showed that the goods kept in the store were motor cars, cream separators, and heavy merchandise. Mr Campbell had stated that one of the men had been in his employ some time ago—indeed the two accused had worked for Mr Campbell at one time—and they would doubtless know the class of goods in the store. Could it be said that the men broke into the place to steal these heavy goods? They must have known there were other warehouses in the neighbourhood that held a lighter class of goods, and yet they went to the warehouse in which they were found. Were they going to carry away

cream separators or other heavy goods? Further, the men had been seen by a policeman. Was it to be supposed, then, that they would go to a warehouse only two chains away and break into it? If they had been thieves, would they not have postponed their operations for the night? The story of the men was that they went to the store to sleep. They had been drinking-; they had to go to work early, and, knowing the store, they went to it instead of going home. His Honor summed up the evidence briefly, and referred to the story put forward by the accused. The jury, he said, were asked to believe that some benevolent person had broken open the door of the warehouse; that the two accused had come along at 4 o’clock in the morning, and feeling sleepy had gone into the store to sleep. Was it a probable story? Let the jury apply commonsense to it. He would not waste their time by making further reference to it. The jury retired at 2.51 p.m. and returned at 5.24 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. The two accused were discharged. FATGAN S CASE. At the last sitting of the court, Ashley George Faigan was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on a charge of negligent driving. Sentence on a charge of manslaughter was reserved pending the decision of the Court of Appeal on a point of law regarding the culpability of an unlicensed drive”

When Faigan appeared, in response the calling of his name, he was not asked to take his stand in the prisoner’s dock. He was represented by Mr A. G. Neill. Mr Neill: The accused was hailed to appear here following the Court of Appeal decision. His Honor said the Court of Appeal had decided to quash the conviction on the first count—that of manslaughter-— and the accused would be discharged. INDECENT LANGUAGE. John Frederick Hammcrley was charged with, on or about June 3, 1927, at Dunedin, using indecent language in a public place—to wit, High street. The Crown Prosecutor conducted the ease. The accused, who was undefended, pleaded not guilty. Accused challenged five of the men called for the jury. In stating the facts,, the Crown Prosecutor said the offence was alleged to have taken place about G o’clock on the evening of June 3 —a public holiday—near Todd Bros.’ motor garage in Lower High street. . Accused had his car drawn into the kerb, and had been working at it for some time. There were one or two men in the ear or about it, all the men being a party. At this stage, all witnesses were, at the request of accused, asked to leave the court. Accused: In the lower court when a similar order was made it was violated, and one man remained in the court. His Honor : I have nothing to do with that. Accused : Thank you, your Honor. The Crown Prosecutor went on to refer to the language used by the accused. A police officer spoke to the accused, then went away, and returned later with another officer. A question was raised as to whether accused was under the influence of liquor. Accused said that, to settle the question, he would go to the police station. He did so, and was there seen by one of ’ie senior men. The issue of drunkenness or sobriety was not the issue in the ease. The issue was whether the accused used indecent language. If the accused used the words, he was guilty of the offence, whether he was drunk or sober. It was right that an offence of this nature should not be permitted on the public street, and the jury, he believed, would say it should not be tolerated. The charge was only usually dealt with ’n the lower court, but had been removed to the Supreme Court at the option of the accused.

Evidence was called for the prosecution.

The Accused, giving evidence, said ho was a butcher, an ex-mental patient, an ex-detective, and an ex-publican. On the evening of June 5 he left his car in front of Todd Bros’ garage in lower High street. When working at the car the crank handle flew off and hit him on the nose, causing a wound, which bled. He might have used a certain expression when the handle hit him, but he did not remember doing so. He never liked getting a crack on the nose, especially with a handle. He really did not think, however, he had used the language that fell on Mr Gibson’s delicate ems. Two constables came along, and one of them asked. "Are you sober?” Witness said, "UndonbWdly,” and offered to go before the sub-inspector with the police officers. He was sober, and although the sub-inspector advised him to leave his car alone for an hour he took it away, and there were no accidents, no deaths and no murders. Cross-examinea, accused denied that he used the words alleged by Mr Gibson. The Crown Prosecutor: Do you, on your oath, denv having, used other words? Accused (excitedly) : Do not come at me like that, Mr Adams. I know lamon my oath, and you need not come that game with me. His Honor advised the accused to keep quiet and not get excited. Accused : Very well, your Honor, I will do so.

The Accused said he had no other witnesses to call. He addressed the jury for five minutes, contending that no evidence had been given against him, except that of “lying constables,’’ who were persecuting him. He referred to wrongful treatment he had received at the hands of the police, simpy because he was sticking up for his rights, which he would always do, because he had some Irish blood in him. He was dismissed from the Police Force for a wrong he did not commit. Since then the police had never left him alone. He had been hounded and chased, but the surroundings of an asylum or a gaol would not congeal the blood in his veins, and he was there again that day to speak for himself, and to claim his rights, which, he was sure, the jury would allow him.

The Crown Pi-osecutor, in a brief address, deprecated the suggestion of persecution made by the accused. His Honor referred to the law on the matter, and reviewed the evidence for the benefit of the jury. At 5.50 p.m. the jury retired, and at 5.50 p.m. they returned to court with a verdict of guilty, with the following rider: “The jury is of opinion that the accused, on account of his highly nervous temperament, does not realise the seriousness of what he does.” His Honor: The prisoner will be remanded for sentence. . I shall consider what should be done with him. Accused asked for bail. His Honor: You will be notified later. Accused: Your Honor, I live at Mosgiel. There are 49 or 50 pigs to look after, sheep to feed, and a calf tied up. I am the onlv actor on the scene. Mv car is standing in the lane near the Police Court.

His Honor: I suppose there is no objection, Mr Adams, to his being released On bail. The Crown Prosecutor said he saw no objection. It seemed almost necessary to allow bail so that the animals might be attended to.

His Honor said he would pass sentence on Monday morning at 10 o’clock. Accused was released on bail. The court rose at 5.55 p.m. APPLICATION BY BANKRUPT REFUSED. Wheeler Tumber Cooper, a carpenter, of Oamaru, applied for an order of discharge from bankruptcy. His Honor asked the applicant why he had not appeared the previous day. He must have been asleep. Cooper (who had been in the court the previous day) said he had not heard his name called. His Honor asked the applicant if he could do anything for his creditors. Cooper said he could do nothing at present for his creditors. He had a wife to maintain and a daughter, aged 20. and a niece. His Honor: Did any creditors prove their debts against your estate? Cooper apparently did not understand the purpose of the question and did not reply. His Honor reiterated his question, again without result. His Honor: If you are so stupid as that, you don’t deserve to get your discharge. The Bankrupt said that none of his creditors had raised an objection against his discharge. His Honor: Your creditors have not received one penny, have they? Cooper: No, sir. Cooper then made some statement about the sale of a house which had been sold at less than the amount of the mortgage. His Honor said the official assignee reported that Cooper had spent £4OO in apparently trying to get his brother released. “What business,” asked his Honor, “had you in spending your money in trying to get your brother released?” Cooper said he was getting on fairly well at that time. His Honor : When was it you spent the money ? Cooper said he thought it was in 1923. His Honor: I don’t think you deserve your discharge. Your application is refused. Wednesday, August 3. The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were continued on Wednesday. His Honor Mr Justice Sim occupied the bench. CHARGE OF BOOKMAKING. Thomas Butler was charged with having, on or about June 3, at Dunedin, carried on the business and occupation of a bookmaker. Mr W. G. Hay appeared for the accused. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown solicitor) said the charge was laid under section 2 of the Gaming Act Amendment Act, 1920, under which - the business or occu pation of a bookmaker was declared to be unlawful. The facts were that on June 3 Chief Detective Cameron and Detective Lean went into the back bar of the Carlton Hotel, and summoned the accused into the corridor or some adjacent room. The chief detective asked the accused if he had a double going on the races that day. The accused admitted that he had, and handed over a book, which, the speaker submitted, was an ordinary bookmaker’s book. The book contained entries dealing with races at Forbury Park on May 5, at Oamaru on May 21, and the Dunedin Jockey Club’s races at Wingatui on the day on which it was produced, so that it contained internal evidence of activities covering those three meetings. The court was not concerned with the ethics of bookmaking, which was a matter entirely for the legislature. All the court was" concerned about was the duty of enforcing the law as it existed. The jury would notice that the accused was accosted in the Carlton Hotel. Mr Adams suggested that that was a bad feature of the case. The last thing they wanted to see was a combination of bookmaking and the running of hotel bars. Whether there was much of that he could not say, but such a combination was certainly an evil one and lent itself to all manner of evil practices. The law was clear os to carrying on licensed premises and also about bookmaking, and the lastplace where bookmakers should be allowed to carry on was in and about the bars of hotels. After the evidence was tendered,

Mr Adams, in addressing the jury, said that there was no evidence to. contradict the evidence given bv the two detectives Counsel explained the odds laid in the double to the jury, and said that it was abundantly clear what the nature of the entries in the book were.

Mr Hay said that the police had not brought anv evidence to show that the accused had offered to make a bet, nor was there evidence that he had sent out - any circulars offering to make a bet. Counsel asked if it was likely that the accused was going to be so candid to the police officers, and said that there was quite room for suspicion of their evidence on this point. The accused was no simpleton, nor fool, and vet they were asked to believe that he had come forward and said. “Um the man vou want. I’m a bookmaker.” Counsel would not deny that the accused followed up races, but he asked the jurv to say whether the book showed a system of “double” betting. Counsel showed the book to the jury and said thev would see “100 to 2.” He did not know himself whether this was pounds, shillings and pence, but the Crown said it meant £lOO to two. When the book came to be analysed the allegation that it related to betting was not proved. They could not convict a man on suspicion. Detective Lean had said that the' letters “0.V.” meant “Ocean View.” This was mere suspicion, and here again thev could not, from the book, say that it contained a system of double betting. He maintained that the Crown’s explanation of the liook was absolute imagination The Crown had to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused carried on the business of a bookmaker. Where were all the race cards, and where were the double charts? The absence of them was

enough to raise a doubt in their minds. The book proved nothing, and, seeing that the case had to be fully proved against the accused, lie thought there could be only one verdict, and that was not guilty. His Honor, in summing up. quoted the clauses of the Gaining Act relating to the offence of bookmaking. It was "for the jury to say whether they were satisfied that the accused was carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The Crown relied on the evidence of Detective Lean and Chief Detective Cameron as to the admissions by the accused to them. This evidence was not contradicted. The Crown also relied on the book produced. There was evidence that races were being held at Forbury Park on May 5 and 7 a trotting meeting at Oamaru on May 21, and a galloping meeting at Dunedin on June 1 and 3, and the Crown asked them to infer from the entries in the book that the accused was making bets in connection with the races held at these places. They had heard the suggestion made by counsel for the defence that these entries might have been made by a punter and not by a bookmaker at all. He did not think he could help them in the matter. They had the evidence before them, and this would have to say whether it had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Butler had been carrying on the business of a bookmaker.

The jury retired at a quarter to 12 and returned at 12.23 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty. ANOTHER CHARGE )F BOOKMAKING. David Thomas I’earson was also charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker. Accused, who was defended by Mr A. G. Neill, pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said that tho Chief Detective, in company with Detective Lean had gone to the Prince of Wales Hotel on the morning of June 3. The accused was called out of the bar, and in answer to a question by the detectives as to what betting he had done he s tid that lie had only taken a few bets that morning. Accused handed over several “day” cards to the detectives. The jury must not concern itself about the lav, regarding betting. The law *vas on the statute books, and it was their duty to see that it was enforced. Betting in hotels was a sinister feature of the case, ami this betting was said to have taken place in the bar of the Prince of Wales Hotel. In his address to the iurv. Mr Adams said that in any presection for an offence under the Gaming Act a mere offer to make a bet was prima facie evidence of carrying on business as a bookmaker. The accused had handed certain cards to the detectives, and had apparently admitted that he had taken “those” bets that morning. Mr Neill submitted that to establish the charge it was necessary to prove that the accused was a bookmaker and that he was carrying on such a business on June 3. Where was the evidence that the accused either directly or indirectly offered to make a bet? The fact that the accused had a cheque book in his hand was not evidence that he had been betting. The entries in the book could be onsistent with other things than bookmaking. There was no evidence that the entries did not refer to Pearson’s own bets. There was also no evidence that the accused was r. member of the Dominion Sportsmen’s Association on June o or that the association was an association of bookmakers. After his Honor had reviewed the evidence, the jury retired at 2.15 p.m. At 2.45 p.m. the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty. < The accused was discharged. A SERIOUS CHARGE. Walter John Gower was arraigned on charges of carnal knowledge, attempted carnal knowledge, and indecent assault. The accused, who was defended by Mr C. J. L. White, pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor ordered 10 members of tl’.e jury panel to stand aside, and counsel for the accused challenged six. His Honor requested the press not to publish the name of the girl concerned in the case.

Witnesses were ordered out of court. The Crown Prosecutor stated the facts. He later called in evidence, and the witnesses were the girl, her father, and several others. The evidence of two of the witnesses varied in some particulars. One of the female witnesses fainted in the box. Mr White addressed the jury, contending that charges of this kind were easy to bring and difficult to refute. The jury must scrutinise the evidence with care, and if there was any doubt the accused should have the benefit of that doubt. There was very little against the accused except the evidence of the girl, and the evidence corroborative of the girl's story was not such as would meet with the approval of the jury. The court adjourned at 5.35 p.m. Thursday, August 4. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) A SERIOUS CHARGE. The hearing of the charges against Walter John Gower was continued. His Honor addressed the jury, reviewing the evidence and pointing out the bearing of the law on the facts of the case. The jury retired at 10.30 a.m., and returned at 10.55 a.m. with a verdict of guilty. Accused was remanded for sentence. ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES. Alexander Campbell, James Shaw Campbell. Samuel Campbell, Charles James Thomas Alexander Lowery, and Frederick William Bamfield were charged with, on or about December 22. 1925, at Dunedin, with intent to defraud bv false pretences —to yvit, by representing that Robert Scott Gray had purchased a new Delage

motor car, valued at £650, and had paid £215 in part payment—they did procure the sum of £435 to be delivered by the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company. The same accused were charged with, on or about February 15, 1926,° at Dunedin, with intent to defraud by false pre-tences—-to wit, by representing that James Shaw Campbell had purchased a new Star motor car. valued at £775, and had paid a deposit of £515 as part payment—thev did procure the sum of £515 to be delivered by the Otago and Southland I’inance Corporation to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company. Die same accused were charged 'with on or about February 15, 1926, at Dunedin, with intent to defraud by false pretences —to wit, by representing that Alexander Campbell had purchased a new Star motor car, valued at £775, and had paid as part payment—they did procure - sum £515 to be delivered bv the Iraders’ Finance Corporation to the New demand Motor and Engineering Company. Ine same accused were charged with or or about February 15, 1926,” at Dunedin, with intent to defraud by false pretences to wit, by representing that Samuel Campbell had purchased a new nit Car ’ ? lUed at £B50 ’ and had paid L 235 as part payment—they did procure the sum of £565 to be delivered by the Traders Finance Corporation to the pany Z and Motor ar,d Engineering Com-

The same accused were charged with on or about March 1, 1925, at Duned >n, with intent to defraud by false preGhn 1 t( r Wlt ’r by representing that Charl« James L ° WCr - y had Enchased a had p S ahi r £26n r CaF ’ ?’ al " ed afc £775 ’ and had paid £260 as part payment—they did procure the sum of £515 to be delivered by the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation to the Otago Motor and Engineering Company. ” The S am e accused were charged with o n on or about March 1, 1926, at Dun with intent to defraud bv false pretences—tT° n X’ lt ’iM repres l entln - that Walter Morris Lowe had purchased a new St t car, valued at £495, and had paid £lO3 payment—they did procure the sum of £330 to be delivered by the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation to the Otago Motor and Engineering Company - Ihe same accused and Clifford Peel wei-e charged with, on or about March 6. K2o, at Dunedin, with intent to defraud ? a^.pretences —to wit, by representing that Clifford Peel had purchased a. new Star motor lorry, valued at £695. and had paid £230 as part payment—they did procure the sum of £465 to be delivered by the Otago and Southland Finance Cor poration to the Otago Motor and Engineering Company.

The same accused and Clifford Peel were charged with, on or about March 26, at Dunedin, with intent to defraud by false pretences—to wit, by representing that Clifford Peel had purchased a new Star motor car, valued at £495, and had paid £165 as part payment—they did procure tne sum of £330 to be delivered by the Traders’ Finance Corporation to the Otago Motor and Engineering Company. The same accused and Clifford Peel were charged with, on or about October 6, 1926, at, Dunedin, with intent to defraud bv false pretences—to wit, by representing that Olive Smith had purchased a new Star motor car. valued at £550, and had paid £lB5 as part payment—thev did procure the sum of £565 to he delivered by the Traders' Finance Corporation to the Otago Motor and Engineering Company. All the accused pleaded not "uiltv. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Alexander Campbell and James Shaw Campbell ; Mr W. L. Moore for Samimi Campbell: Mr W. G. Hay for Lowery : and Mr C. J. L. M nite for Bamfield. Accused Peel conducted his own defence. At the suggestion of his Honor the six accused were provided with seats. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams), before opening the case, said that in Mr Reid’s evidence there was a good deal of matter as to the formation of the company and financial arrangements generally, some of which was not closely related to the false pretences charge. There was also evidence as to the stability of the company.

11is Honor: I suppose the history of the company has nothing to do with the charges made against the accused. The evidence as to the position of the company might be heard. The Crown Prosecutor said that in a general way the position of the men as directors and " shareholders, and the number of shares they held, might not affect the case. His Honor: I cannot see how the history of the company can have any bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused. What is your view, Mr Hanlon ? Mr Hanlon submitted that the evidence was not necessary. The accused were charged with doing certain things on specific dates. The fact that the company might be in need, or that it was a rich company, had no bearing on the charges of dishonesty, for which the accused were before the court. As for the company being in need, no one would dispute it. The company was in need of money, and this means of financing was adopted, if that came within the criminal law thev were guilty, but counsel for the accused proposed to show that it did not, and that it was a mere case of finance. It was agreed to omit the unnecessary evidence. In his opening address, Mr F. B. Adams said he wished to point out that l it was the duty of the jury to deal with the matter in accordance with the evidence placed before it. There were matters which might possibly have come to their ears and which he would ask them to dismiss entirely from their thoughts, dealing with the case solely on the evidence to be brought forward. His Honor had ruled that certain evidence given in the lower court was not to be gone into on this occasion, and, therefore, he (Mr Adams) asked the jurymen to ignore any recollections they might have of that

evidence. If the evidence-to be placed before the jury led it to the conclusion that the offences had been committed, its duty would be to convict, but if there wa s any reasonable doubt the accused should be acquitted. The charges were laid under a section of the Crimes Act, which provided that anyone was liable to imprisonment with hard labour who obtained anything by any false pretence, either directly or indirectly, with intent to defraud. With the exception of the last one, all the counts in the indictment followed one model. The allegation was that the accused, with intent to defraud by false pretences, had procured advances by representing that certain persons had purchased motor cars for certain sums of money, and that so much had been paid in part payment. The only variation in the charges referred to the fact that in one case a car was described as a newone, whereas it was an old car, and the further representation that it belonged to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company, to which it had never belonged? lhe points of difference, however, were only incidental. The section of the Act under which the charges were laid placed in the forefront the words “with intent to defraud by any false pretence.” The evidence would hardly furnish much ground for dispute as to the facts, and the question to be determined would, he believed, eventually be the question whether those facts established intent to defraud by any false pretence. The accused denied that there was any intent to defraud, but he (Mr Adams) submitted that the fact clearly showed that such an intent existed. The speaker handed to the jury copies of a memorandum in winch the charges were set out, stating that they would be of assistance in understanding and following the case, which involved certain complications which would be difficult to follow without some soit of a chart as a guide. Mr Adams went on to say that for some time past motor dealing had been carried on largely on the hire purchase system, which Traci become a feature of trade. Within the last two, three, or four years companies had been formed with heavy capital and made it their business to supply finance, lhe method of finance was fairly ingenious, but on the whole it was a perfectly simple one. After explaining the working of hire purchase, counsel stated that it was a very common practice, in dealing with articles of substantial value, to take promissory notes from the purchaser, so - that they could be used for suing upon in case of trouble with the agreement. lhe motor finance associations secured from the traders purchase agreements and promissory notes, and in return advanced certain sums of money The financing body thus got as part of its security the motor car that was being dealt with. The financing corporation got triple security—first, the car; secondly, the liability of the purchaser bv his promissory notes; thirdly, the liability of the motor trader as endorsee of the proniissory notes. The accused had financed nine transactions in that way, but the sales were not real sales, and no deposits were paid by the purchasers. In these transactions it was an essential feature that a substantial deposit should be paid bv a purchaser, as no firm would dream of lending the full price of a motor car, the value of which depreciated as soon as it touched the road. The lending companies were in the habit of dealing in margins of one-third, so that a purchaser should have paid a deposit of one-third of the price of a car. The contention of the Crown was that not one of the nine sales was genuine, and that the documents were framed up to make it look as if there had been sales. If the transactions were genuine, why were the true facts not shown in the documents? In the first six counts five of the accused were charged, but Peel was concerned only in the last three counts. On the seventh and eighth counts all the accused were charged, and on the ninth all the accused except Lowery were concerned. Mr Adams proceeded to state that he proposed to show that there was a common design on the part of the accused.

His Honor: Supposing a company is carrying on business in a fraudulent way, would any shareholder who knows what is being done be criminally liable? Would }ou carry it so far ? Mr Adams said he would not do so. His Honor: What was the position of ths company in December, 1925? Was Alex. Campbell anything more than a shareholder then? Mr Adams: He was a shareholder, director, and joint manager with Lowery. Mr Hanlon: How do you connect Samuel Campbell on that date? Mr Adams: He wgg a shareholder, and know what was going on. His Honor: There must be something more than mere knowledge. Mr Hanlon: You are charging this man, who was merely a shareholder and nothing more. Air Adams said it mnst be left to the jury to decide whether he was concerned in a series of transactions. The jury must be satisfied that each of the accused was in some way participating in a common design. In five cases there was no signature implicating Alex. Campbell in the transactions, but he was a shareholder, joint manager, and director. His signature appeared in four transactions, "and in one case he was represented to be the actual purchaser of a car. The question in regard to Bamfield was whether he knew what was being done, and was a party to the scheme, or whether he signed the promissory notes formally. When the hearing of evidence was about to be started, Mr White asked that all witnesses be ordered out of court.

His Honor asked if there was any necessity for such a procedure. He said it seemed undesirable to have them ordered out unless there was some reason for it. Mr White said he had a reason for making the application. Mr Hanlon, who was asked for his views on . the point, said he was indifferent, but he understood that Mr White wanted two of the witnesses ordered out.

His Honor said it was a ritv to have witnesses hanging about outside uiineeessarily. Mr White: Will you allow me to renew my application at a later stage? . His Honor: Certainly. Evidence was then temlerd for the prosecution. The statements wer e read to the jury by the Crown Prosecutor, the rcadiiv occupying 24 minutes. Ihis closed the case for the Crown. In reply to his Honor, it was stated by counsel and bv the accused Peel- that they did rot intend to call evidence for the defence. The accused were released on their asurance that they would appear on the tollowing morning. Friday, August 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES. The charge of false pretences against Alexander Campbell, Janies Shaw- CampJ?, * Samuel Campbell, Charles James Ikomas Alexander Lowerv, Frederick WiL ham Bamfield, and Clifford Peel were further heard. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams), in addressing the jury, said the first question they had to consider was whether or not false representations had been made, and he submitted that the facts proved to demonstrate that false representations were, in fact, made with' regard to each of the nine transactions in the case. Those misrepresentations \'cie m black and white, and were perfectly clear, and the question was, Were the misrepresentations made in such circumstances that the jury could infer the mtent to defraud? It might be said by counsel that the practice was clean business: it might be said it was sharp practice, which no one would characterise as iraud, or it might have been what the Ciown alleged it to have been—false pretences made with intent to defraud. Whatever it was. the practice was one that should be discouraged, and the methods proved against the accused w-ere worthy of the strongest disapprobation, and, he submitted, could not be regarded as clean busmess. It would be disastrous if such metnods came to be common, and our standards of morality could only be maintained by characterising this sort of thing as false. It was true that no one had lost money by the action of the defendants, but one of the companies had to bring pressure to bear on the defendants, and in that way secured its money. The question, however, was not whether someone had suffered loss, but whether the transaction in its origin, with regard to its actual consequences, was or was not ' done with intent to defraud.

Mr A. C. Hanlon, for the accused Alexander Campbell and James Shaw Campbell, said the case was one in which' the jury had to decide the question of whether or not there was any intent to defraud. He asked the jury not to be swayed by what they had read in tho papers or heard outside the court. No one could pretend that all that was done in connection with the cases was right or proper or perfectly clean, and fair and square business. No one could seriously contend such a thing, but, in order to convict, the jury had to find whether the defendants had brought themselves within the terms of the criminal law. The action of the men might have been, reprehensible, but did they bring themselves within the criminal law? Had the accused, or anv of them, been guilty ' of obtaining money bv false pretences? The jury had to say whether there was a representation made by word or by documents; was it known to the person who made it to be false, and was it made with a fraudulent intent to induce another person to act on it? Everyone was liable Io punishment who, with intent to defraud, by a false pretence, obtained anything that was capable of being stolen. Had the men brought themselves within that category? If the jurv had a doubt on the matter, it was its duty to acquit lhe accused. What was done in this case? The men wanted to raise money, a hire-purchase agreement was prepared, a car was ostensibly sold to one of themselves or to a man in the office, the price of the car was stated in the agreement, the amount of the alleged deposit w-as put in the agreement, the one was subtracted from the other, and <he balance was the amount for which bills were given. Those bills were signed bv the hirer of the car, endorsed by the company, and taken to a finance corporation, which was asked to advance up to two-thirds of the value of the documents and the promissory notes. The corporation now said that if they had known that the transactions were bogus, or that the amount; alleged to have been paid as a deposit had not been paid, they would not have advanced the money. But even if the sale had been a bogus one, even if representations were made to induce the corporation to make advances, there was one thing more that was necessary. and that was that the jury must ba satisfied the men obtained the money, with intent to defraud, by means of falsa pretence,. Did they act with intent to' defraud? In other wo.'ds, did thev devise a scheme to cheat and swindle these corporations out of their money? In all falsa pretences cases someone was robbed by means of a device or trick bv the accused person. It was. in a way, a form of theft. Was that the case here? Was there a’ suggestion that anybody was robbed or that these men made >’.7 a scheme to cheat’ anybody out of their money ? No doubt, they got the handling of money for a time, but did they intend to defraud the corporation and cheat them out of their money? The jury could not find such N thing. When the accused got the money they used it, and when the bills became due they, for a considerable time, paid the bills on the d&s dales. They went' to the corporations with a scheme, <rot' them to advance money, gave them billa which they had endnrccd. and when thd bills became due they mid hack thei money. If the men had intended to deH

fraud, would they have paid back? No, they would not. Bills were given for money advanced, and when the bills became due the money was paid back. All the money had not been paid back, but for the amount not paid back the corporation concerned held security. That being bo, how could the jury say they were satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the men had obtained money from the corporations with, intent to defraud them out of their money. Was it possible for the jury to say, “Whether they intended to pay back or not, they got it, and we find it was with intent to defraud”? The jury had to take all the evidence and make up their minds whether the money was obtained with intent to defraud. In this case nobody had lost a shilling. The people who were supposed to have been swindled had lost nothing. Were these men to be convicted of obtaining money with intent to 'defraud when the circumstances showed that they paid the money back and everybody was either paid or secured, and nobody had lost a shilling? Alexander Campbell, in his statement to the police, said : “I had no intention to defraud anyone, and did not consider I was doing anything that would amount to a criminal act or bring me under suspicion. We considered this was the simplest and best method to adopt.” These men had carried on business in Dunedin for years. Was it likely they would do anything to bring them under suspicion? Certainly, their methods were not to be commended. As a matter of fact, the methods were all wrong. But although it was not a proper way to do business, the jury must be satisfied that there was an intention to defraud —an intention to cheat or swindle. If the jury found the six men guilty of having an intention to defraud, they must brand all of them as a pack of criminals who had been carrying on nefarious practices in the citv But. ho repeated. b- < ‘- - jury could make criminals of the —>o-’.

they must find an intention to defraud, and there was no evidence before the court to show such an intention.

Mr W. L. Moore, on behalf of Samuel Campbell, said he accepted the arguments put forward by his learned friend, Mr Hanlon. He submitted that the only evidence against his client was that he signed a bailment, a promissory note, and an insurance proposal. As for the promissory note, it had been paid. His client was a draper; he had no connection with the concern, except that at one period he was a director, and no one could possibly suggest he ever had any intention to defraud any person. Air White, on behalf of Lowery, contended that his client had no intention whatever to defraud when he entered into these transactions. No one would say they were proper commercial transactions, but it could not be said they came within the criminal law’. If the men had been swindlers, would they have used their own names? Was it not more likely they would have put bogus signatures? Further than that, would they have taken some of their employees into their confidence if they had intended to act dishonestly? That was surely conclusive evidence that they had no criminal intention in their mind. What the men wanted were the promissory notes. They got these notes, and in time the notes were paid, with interest.

Mr Hay, for the accused Bamfield. said there was no evidence that his client knew that false statements had been made in connection with the transactions. Certainly, he had signed some promissory notes, but he had signed no hire-purchase agreements, and he had not bought a earHe had nothing to do with any application for a loan or with any insurance. His only connection with the case ■was the signing of promissory notes. In his

statement he said: “The typist would bring a file of promissory notes in respect of hire-purchase agreements and other sales for endorsement. My confidence was such that I complied, being confident that the promissory notes would be of vaiue only in right channels. I did not inquire into the transactions, which was a matter for the manager-” That was the position. Bamfield signed these promissory notes among a batch of others; they appeared to be genuine, and as a matter of fact they were, and he accepted the manager’s affirmation that they were all right, and he endorsed them. There was nothing in the evidence to indicate that that evidence was not true. And although he was a director he trusted to others to carry out the details of the management. Tint b-"'n" i> ; o •• ’ - ' not be said that simply by signing promissory notes he .»>. ...c - . anything false in the hire-purchase agreements. The accused Peel, who addressed the jury briefly", said it had struck him very forcibly that the remarks made by Mr Hanlon covered his position. So far as intent was concerned the Crown had to prove absolutely that he had a direct or indirect intention to defraud. There was no intention on his part to defraud anyone. It would not be right for him to waste the time of the court when the position had been summed up so well by Mr Hanlon. In conclusion, he submitted that the Crown had not proved conclusively and to the satisfaction of the jury that there was any intention to defraud so far as he was concerned.

In summing up his Honor said there were nine counts in the indictment in which the accused were charged with having obtained sums of money in the shape of advances by loan comp'anies to the

New Zealand Motor and Engineering ■ Company by means of false pretences. The false pretence alleged in each ease was that the hire purchase’ agreement on which the advance was obtained was genuine, and that in each case the hirer had paid a deposit in connection with the transaction. It ,vas not seriously suggested now that these hire purchase agreements were genuine. In fact, it was practically admitted by counsel for the accused that the jury was entitled to regard them as bogus. Whether counsel had made that admission or not the jury would have had no difficulty. in coining to the conclusion that they were bogus, because they were treated by all the parties concerned as bogus. Gray apparently signed a hire-purchase agreement without it being filled in, and apparently he 1 signed promissory notes in blank. When I the promissory notes matured they were I paid by the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company. It was quite clear that the hire-purchase agreements were all bogus transactions. There were five cases in which money was obtained from the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation and four in which it was obtained from the Traders’ Finance Corporation. In the ease of the Otago and Southland Finance Corporation applications were made on behalf of th? New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company for advances. In each case the application contained a statement with regard to the transaction. There was a distinct statement in each case that a deposit of a particular sum had been paid by the hirer. Each of the nine applications contained two false statements. It was represented to the loan companies that the hirepurchase agreements wore genuine, whereas it was clear that they were not : genuine. It was also represented that

in each case the hirer had paid a substantial deposit, which was untrue, so it was quite clear that false repi esentations were made to the companies. It was clear that if these false representations had not been made the loan companies would have had nothing to do with the transactions, and the money would not have been lent. So far, it seemed to him, the jury had no difficulty with the case. Then came the question on wiiic.. counsel for the accused had laid so much stress, and that was the question whether it was clear that there was a:.r intention to defraud. That was an essential ingredient in the offence. It hr fl been put to the jury that there wa: no intent to defraud, because those responsible for this method of “raising the wind” did not have any intention to cheat either of the lending corporations. That, it seemed to him, was no answer at all. The fact that the corporations did not suffer any loss at all had nothing to do with the matter. It was a question ?> nether the accused did not obtain loans by false pre-

tences. If they intended to induce the companies to make loans by what, they knew to be false pretences and obtained money in that way the offenc-' was complete the moment the loan was made. If one induced a man to part with his property by false pretences it was no answer to say that he did not suffer any loss. In the case of Gray the accused were all liable to be prosecuted the very day that the loan was obtained if the money was got by false pretences. It was not a question of waiting to see whether the lending company had suffered a loss. The jury could accept that as the law on the subject. The jury had also to consider the case of each accused by itself. The position was complicated by the fact that the accused did not receive the money themselves. The money was lent to the New Zealand Motor and Engineering Company, and it was a question of how far any of the accused was responsible criminally for any of the transactions. The position seemed to be that if a company set out to obtain money by a series of bogus transactions the jury would certainly be justified in assuming that at any rate all

the directors who were about at the time the transactions were being put through knew that the transactions were being carried on, and it was entitled to say : — “Here is this company engaged on the scheme of fraud. The directors must have known all about this, and we hold them all responsible for what has been done in this way.” His Honor suggested *hat it was quite clear from the transactions that this method of “raising the wind” must have been known to the directors. It was not a case of one isolated transaction. Every director who was in Dunedin at the time the transactions were carried out must have known of the scheme, and therefore was responsible for what had been done. His Honor went on to say that Alexander Campbell was a director of the company from the very first, and was also one of the purchasers. He must have signed a hire purchase agreement and promissory notes also, so that clearly he was a party to this fraudulent scheme of raising money. • Then he actually signed an application in the case of Lowery and endorsed a promissory note. He also signed an application for an advance to Lowe and endorsed promissory notes. In the case of the second Peel transaction, he signed the agreement and endorsed a proriiissory note. James Shaw Campbell was not properly a director until August 17, and the only transaction after that was th? sale to Olive Smith on October 6. His only personal connection with any transaction was in regard to his own bogus purchase in February, 1926. He was responsible so far as that case was concerned. In the Smith case, he was connected with the transaction, so that he had a connection with two transactions. Samuel Campbell’s position in regard to tlie directorate was the same as that of James Shaw Campbell. He did not actually become a director until August, 1926, and his only personal connection with the matter was to sign a bogus document in October, 1926. If the jury found that the company was carrying out a fraudulent scheme of finance, he was responsible for one case. Lowery was a director right from the. first, and was personally connected with every transaction except die j last two. It was worth noticing that he ' took a share of the responsibilitv for th* ■ introduction of this method of financing. 1 Lowery was one of the purchasers, so it y seemed to his Honor that so far as seven ; of the transactions were concerned what- - every responsibility there was he was in s it “right up to the neck.” Bamfield was y connected with every transaction. In every t case he endorsed promissory notes, and c he was chairman of directors from the h beginning of the transactions. It had been suggested bv counsel that although Bamc field was chairman of directors, and all" though he kept the books of the company, r he had not the least idea that these traus--9 actions were other than genuine. It seemed e verv difficult, said his Honor, to believe n that it would be possible for one occupyr- ing Banifield’s position not to know that >- these were bogus transactions, and that r- the lending companies were being induced d to lend money by false pretences. He was r- the only one of the accused who did not i- buy a car from the company. The only )r charges against Peel were in connection , n with the last three transactions. Peel was le not a shareholder or a director. He was only a servant of the company, but if a '' servant of a company helped io perper' trate fraud he became criminally liable T ’ just the same as a. director did. Peel '' made two bogus purchases of cars, and c ‘ helped to carry out the bogus transaction ■e- with Mrs Smith. ‘C, VERDICT OF THE JURY. I The. jury retired at 11.47. At 1.45 they at I returned to ask a question—namely, Who

induced Gray to sign the hire-purchase agreement, the promissory notes, and the insurance? —His Honor read portion of Gray’s evidence bearing on the question, as follows: —‘l was asked by Alexander Campbell to sign the document. I signed, promissory notes at the same time. There were eight promissory notes. I understood the company would be liable for them. I registered the motor car; the company paid the money.” The jury again retired at 1.47 p.m. At 2.37 p.m. they returned, and the Foreman intimated that the verdict was: — Samuel Campbell, not guilty on all charges. Alexander Campbell, guiltv on five counts (first, third, fifth, sixth, and eighth).

James Shaw Camnbell, guilty on two counts (second and ninth). Charles James Thomas Alexander LowCI- y> guilty on seven counts (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh). Frederick William Bamfield, guiltv on five counts (second, third, fourth, fifth, and eighth)

Clifford Peel, guilty on two counts {eighth and ninth).'

'the accused were found not guilty as to the other charges. Samuel Campbell was discharged from custody.

The five accused were remanded for sentence. They did not apply for bail. The court adjourned at 2.50. Monday., August 8. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) PRISONERS SENTENCED. John Fredrick Hammerley, using indecent language. Admitted to probation for 12 months. Alexander Campbell, James Shaw Campbell, Charles James lliomas Alexander Lowery, Frederick William Bamfield, and Clifford Peel, false pretences. The first four named were fined £3O, and the last-named was fined £lO. Walter John Gower, carnal knowledge. Five years hard labour. - AUCKLAND, August 2. In the Supreme Court, Archibald M Lean, aged 29, for receiving stolen furs, the proceeds of the Newton robbery, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. T August 1. In the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Stnnger presiding, George Crompton Mansfield, for theft, was sentenced to 18 months hard labour. Thomas M’Fadden, for the theft of £6 10s from a drunken man, was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labour. Leslie Elvy, on 21 charges of thett of money exceeding £lOO, whilst in the employ of the Railways Department, was ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a period not exceeding 18 months. °

WELLINGTON, August 1. John Asher was sentenced by Mr Justice MacGregor to five years’ imprisonment for arson, and to two years for breaking and entering and theft, to be served concurrently. His Honor said the case was a particularly bad one. Asher entered the house, stole all the money he could find, and set the house on fire, endangering the life of a bedridden woman next door.

George Huia Brewer (who had 25 previous convictions) was sentenced to six months, to be served at the expiry of his present term.

Tr , . „ August 5. Herbert George Reddington, a farm labourer, aged 19, appeared for sentence before Mr Justice MacGregor, on three charges of forging and uttering at Palmerston North, and was ordered to be detained in the Borstal Institute for a period not exceeding two years. \\ illiam Robert Ilenderson, a labourer, aged 18, was similarly dealt with on a charge of breaking and entering and theft at Raetihi.

Eric Athol Odium, a labourer, aged 24. appeared for sentence on a charge of forgery and uttering and theft of a ring. He was ordered to be detained for reformative treatment for a period not exceeding 18 months.

PALMERSTON N., August 5. Kenneth Humphries, who was found gndty on three charges of stealing- cattle at Waituna West, was sentenced bv Mr Justice Reed to four months’ imprisonment. His Honor intimated that he had taken into account, the fact that the prisoner had already been in gaol since Mav. °

George William Terry, who had pleaded gudty to seven charges of false pretences, was admitted to probation for two years on condition that he refunded the money involved (£B6), paid the court expenses, and abstained from betting or going on any race course during that time. °