A FINE OF £5600.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 298, 16 December 1931, Page 7

A FINE OF £5600.

Reduction Made by Court of Appeal. SAMOAN COMPANY’S CASE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, December 16. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in the case of O. F, Nelson and Company, Limited v. the Police (Samoa), but the fines were reduced to £2OO on the first charge and £lO on every other charge. The judgment of the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr Justice Reed and Mr Justice Adams was delivered by the Chief Justice. His Honor held that except in those cases where such a construction was impossible the word “ person ” in the regulations in question included a company in addition. Despite the admission by the SolicitorGeneral at the trial that a company could not be guilty of mens rea this company was rightly convicted under the regulations. Consequently the appeal should be dismissed and the conviction must stand. In his opinion the penalties imposed by the Chief Judge of Samoa were excessive, and the fines should be reduced to £2OO on the first charge and £lO on every other charge. Mr Justice Ostler, in a dissenting judgment, held that the appeal should be allowed, as once it was admitted that mens rea was a necessary ingredient of the charge, then it was clear to him that the company could not be convicted. Judgment was entered in accordance with the decision of the majority of the Court. In January an information was laid by the police in Samoa, charging the company with twenty-eight different breaches of the Samoan Regulations of January, 1930, in that it participated in the activities and aided, abetted and encouraged the activities of a seditious organisation, to wit the Mau, by receiving various sums of money on its behalf. The company was found guilty and convicted by Chief Justice Luxford and fined the maximum penalty of £2OO on each charge, making a total fine of £5600. The company appealed from that judgment. Mr Moody, for appellant company, said the appeal was based on the following grounds:—(l) The convictions were not justified by the facts; (2) they were erroneous in point of law; (3) in any case the penalties were excessive. Counsel said the suggestion made by the prosecution in the Court below was that by the receiving of these moneys and giving receipts therefor, the company had committed a breach of the Samoan Regulations, the inference being that they w r ere to be used for the purpose of the Mau. The total amount received was £238 ss. The contention of appellants, however, as made in the Court below, was that these moneys were paid into the office of the company at Apia by members of the Mau for the purpose of being forwarded to Mr Nelson personally in part repayment of debts due by the Mau to him. The moneys were received by the employees of the company that they might be forwarded to Mr Nelson in discharge of debts owing to him at a time prior to the Mau being declared illegal. These debts had been incurred by Mr Nelson in meeting legal expenses and purchasing goods on behalf of members of the Mau.