DIRECTION UPHELD

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1935, Page 7

DIRECTION UPHELD

JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY. QUESTION OF STOLEN BANK NOTES By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, July 12. Whether, in order to establish a charge of receiving stolen bank notes, it was necessary to prove that notes traced to the possession of an accused person were the actual notes stolen was the principal point involved in a case in which the Appeal Court gave judgment to-day, holding that there was no evidence on either of the counts to go to the jury and that the trial judge was correct in directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on both counts. The question whether or not an accused person could be found guilty of receiving coin or bank notes when particular coin or bank notes had been changed before being received by the accused was in the opinion of the court dependent upon the facts of each particular case.

The case originated in' the Supreme Court, Palmerston North, where Thomas John Lucinsky was charged with stealing, or, alternatively, with receiving £240, the property of Marion Lucinsky. Mr. Justice Smith, who heard the case; directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on both counts. It was on this direction that the Crown sought the ruling of the Court of Appeal.