STOLEN GOODS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 71, Issue 260, 2 November 1928, Page 7

STOLEN GOODS

QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP MAGISTRATE’S DECISION (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH. Nov. 1. Whether certain goods fraudulently obtained and sold should rciaain the property of the person to whom they were sold, s or should be returned to tho original owners, was the question to be decided by Air E. D. Alosley, S.M., in the AT a gist rate’s Court to ay. The case was the sequel to the recent conviction in the Supreme Court of James Bullars AlcKenzic. who was sentenced to a term of impri sonment on several charges of obtaining goods by fraud. The original owners applied to the Court to have these goods returned by Edward Wright to whom they were sold by AlcKenzic’s partner, Sweeney, now missing. Evidence was given as to the circumstances under which the goods were sold. The goods comprised 13 cases of motor spirit. 191 sheets of galvanised iron, five pneumatic tyres and one so id tyre. The Alagistrato said the case was different from one of theft, for a thief had no title to the goods he stole. When a man obtained goods by false pretences he acquired some measure of title. The crux of the matter was whether Wright acted genuinely and gave value. In order to succeed plaintiffs would require to prove that Wright knew the true position and paid a ridicu ous price. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate ordered the goods to be returned to Wright.