COURT OF APPEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9222, 29 April 1908, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL.

4 ■ [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 28. The Court of Appeal gave judgment in the case Rex v. Beeson,. criminal libel, that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove at the trial that an order authorising the prosecution had been made by a Magistrate under Section 5 of the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 1901. So long as the order was duly made (as it was in this case), that was sufficient. The conviction was affirmed. The Court then took the case of Rex I v. Tustin. Defendant wa6 convicted under the Bankruptcy Act of failing to j Keep proper books and contracting debts when he had no reasonable probability of being able to Day them, but the jury expressly found that he was' not guilty of any fraudulent intent. Tlie question was reserved for the higher Court whether .fraud was a necessary ingredient iv tho offence charged. There was also another question of admission of & deposition. Mr Neave appeared for appellant and Mr Myers for the Crown. Without calling on the latter th© Court decided that fraudulent intent was not necessary to constitute the offences charged against ■ appellant, and affirmed the conviction. In Rex v. Hurland. an appeal against a conviction at Auckland for interference with a girl under the age of consent, the Court also affirmed the conviction. A telegram was received from prisoner's counsel stating that he did not wish to go further with the appeal, but the Court considered that it should hear the case. The Court had before it an application by Frank Sales for a new trial. Sales had been convicted at Christchurch of breaking and entering, and on the question of identification leave was granted to apply for a new trial. The case was not concluded when the Court adjourned.