APPEAL DISMISSED

Southland Times, Issue 19899, 18 June 1926, Page 7

APPEAL DISMISSED

ECHO OF SUPREME COURT CASE. ATTEMPTED FALSE PRETENCE. (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, June 17 An echo of the case against Abraham Walley Mohamed Salaman which created a great deal of interest in November, 1924, was heard in the Supreme Court this morning when he appealed against the judgment of the Magistrate who sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment for attempted false pretence. Mr Osburne Lilly, for appellent, stated that in the Lower Court two informations were laid against Salaman. One was for obtaining money on false pretence and the second count was attempting to obtain money by false pretence. The Magistrate found accused guilty of the major offence, inflicting a fine, and then dismissed the charge and imposed a sentence of one month on the minor count. He was concerned with the question whether the Magistrate had power to alter the records. His Honour: You say that if a man is discharged on a major charge he cannot be sent to gaol on a minor count? Mr Lilly: That is so, sir. There being two informations and being found guilty on one he could not be convicted on the other. His Honour: The greater includes the less. The criminal code holds this. Mr Lilly submitted that there was a difference. The facts actually proved the major offence and the doing of the deed made that beyond the question of the attempt. His Honour said he did not see that it made a difference. It led up to the other events and if a man was charged with an attempt and the prosecution proved the attempt was successful it could not be said the offence had not been proved. Mr Lilly: Doesn’t it make a difference, sir, that, having been found guilty, he was discharged ? His Honour: The two informations were like an indictment with two counts and as with a jury so with a magistrate. The prisoner can be acquitted on one count and found guilty on the second. It Is a constant practice and when a jury finds a man not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second he can receive sentence and that is what the Magistrate did. There is no doubt that the Magistrate inadvertently made a blunder but it does not operate against the prisoner, but for him. The error was rectified and held by the Court of Appeal to be within the power of the Magistrate. The accused will get. back his fine. His Honour dismissed the appeal with costs and that means that Salaman will now have to serve the sentence imposed over 18 months ago but which has been held up while the various appeals have been made.