ALLEGED THEFT.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18795, 17 November 1932, Page 8

ALLEGED THEFT.

CASE NOT PROVED. LAND AGENT’S COMMISSION. THE ACCUSED ACQUITTED. The charge of failing to account for £lO and converting the money to his own use against John William Moreland, unlicensed land agent, of Hamilton, ended abruptly in the Supreme Court at Hamilton yesterday afternoon, when Mr Justice Herdman intimated that the case had not been proved. In deference to Mr H. T. Gillies, the Crown Solicitor, His Honour allowed the case to go to the jury who, without retiring,, returned a verdict of not guilty. Mr A. L. Tompkins appeared for the accused. A Full Settlement. Arthur Wilson Wheeler, restaurant owner, of Frankton, and owner of the house in Somerset Street, related that he had signed the agreement for sale and purchase prepared by Moreland. He did not know where the agreement was no\v. He could not remember Moreland mentioning ho was connected with a land agent in Iluntly. He had stipulated that commission must be paid by any purchaser. He could have enforced the agreement bad be wished to. It was agreed at the interview that Priestley was to pay £ll in full settlement instead of £22 as Moreland’s commission. Wilfred Charles Davies, licensed land agent, of Iluntly, gave evidence that Moreland approached him about a year ago with the object of inducing him to open a branch in Hamilton. Moreland asked again ?n May and witness refused the request, but said he was prepared for Moreland to work as his agent. Ho gave Moreland authority to put through a deal which he later said had “fizzled out.” Witness had heard adverse reports about the accused and asked for the return of his authorisation form. Witness forgot about the matter until August 3 when the police asked If he had a Hamilton representative. Witness replied in the negative, forgetting about Moreland. He was told somebody had been using his name in Hamilton. Moreland told him in Hamilton that the deal had not “fizzled out," and offered £5 as commission. Witness declined to accept it and told Moreland the police wanted to see him (witness). On returning from the police station he saw Moreland again and told him to return the £ll. The accused told witness he did not have the money. Witness stated that when Moreland received the commission he should have sent it to him to place in his trust account. However, Moreland had told him the deal was off and witness knew nothing about the commission till August 2. “Treat Him All Right.” To Mr Tompkins, witness said Moreland had suggested that he should get' two-thirds of the commission and witness one-third. Witness replied that he would treat Moreland all right. He did not know whether he told Moreland to send the authorisation forms to him. To His Honour, witness said there was no definite agreement between himself and the accused. Mr Tompkins: You left Moreland entirely to his own devices? —Yes, thinking he would do the right thing. Do ycu still consider yourself liable to pay the £lO to Priestley?— I don’t know what the position is. Why not? —Because I’m not a member of the legal profession. Witness continued that had the sale been effected he would have expected something from the commission. When he refused the £5 he was doubtful about the position. To Mr Gillies, witness said the basis of settlement as outlined by Priestley was news to him. Constable P. Watt stated that he interviewed the prisoner in company with Constable Callaghan on August 2. Moreland asked him if he was under arrest and when he replied he was not Moreland said: ‘‘well you can go to hell and do your worst." This concluded the case for the Crown and Mr Tompkins did not call any evidence for the defence. Addressing the jury Mr Tompkins claimed that prisoner was under no liability to account for £lO. The jury had to decide whether “ I’ll treat you all right" constituted an appointment of Moreland by Davies. The position was that Moreland told Davies that if he allowed him to put through some deals in Hamilton he (Davies) could have one-third of (he commission. All Davies was to do was to allow Moreland to use his name. Did that constitute an appointment? The 'whole transaction had been conducted by the accused and everything was consistent with him being a land agent on his own account. He submitted that even if Moreland was under some nebulous obligation to account it had not been shown that he had failed to account by waiting until August 2. Ho considered Moreland would have been entitled io keep all the commission and Davies had no more than a civil claim, if that, against him. There was, lie submitted, no evidence of criminal intent to defraud on the part of the accused. His Honour, after briefly reviewing the evidence, expressed the opinion that lie was not justified in sending the case to the jury. Mr Gillies disputed several points and contended that the case had been proved. Without retiring, the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged.