A FORTUNE-TELLING CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LVIII, Issue 8944, 19 December 1907, Page 6

A FORTUNE-TELLING CASE.

JUDGMENT.

Reserved judgment was delivered yesterday by Mr lliddoll S.M., in Welliugtou,* in the ease ngaiusfc Lily Kranso, professionally known as Madame Eaperaon, 04, Ghu/mee-streot, for alleged fortune-tolling. There woro two counts to tho charge—first, that ou tho 4th December tho accused undertook to tell fortunes; and second, that 4th Docember she used a subtle craft by palmistry to deceive aud impose upou cortaiu of His Majesty's subjects—viz., Charles Duuuett aud Win. Pender.

His Worship held that the first charge had boen proved agaiust accused. The maximum penalty under section 49 of the Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act was one year's imprisonment. It was, however, in the power of the Magistrate, in cases which he deemed not so serious, to imposo a fine not exceeding £5, or in default one mouth's imprisonment. From the evidence adduced it was quite clear that the accused had received payment for information which she gave the witnesses. She would be convicted, and fined £2, and costs 7s, with tho alternative of one mouth's imprisonment. On tho second count, sectiou 50 of the Indictable Offence Act, his Worship stated that an interesting poiut had been raised by conusel for the defence, who had urged that the section had no basis in auy Act of New T Zealand, and was simply a procedure sectiou. No section of the Criminal Code dealt with this offence, mentioned in section 50. The only basis was an Act of 5, George IV., eh 83, section 4, referring to vagrants and destituto persons. After careful investigation of statutes bearing upon the question his Worship was of opinion that this Act of George IV. was not applicable in New Zealand, and therefore, he held that thore had beeu uo particular offonco under this particular section. Tho information on the second couut was dismissed.—Post.