SHARE DEALING

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21245, 16 October 1940, Page 9

SHARE DEALING

PURPOSE OF TRANSFER CHARGE OI THEFT FAILS JUDGE BRINGS CASE TO END By Telegraph.—Pre.-a Association. CHRISTCHURCH, Tuesday A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury in a case against Donald Ottrey Austin Knight, salesman, in tne supreme Court. Kmgnt was cnarged with thelt in failing to account lor moneys received trom tne sale of shares in Lange’s Mobile Gas Producer, Limned, me verdict was returned at the direction of Mr justice Northcrolt alter Robert

Stewart Lange had admitted when cross-examined that Knight was entitled to sell shares transferred to mm by Lange. The case for the defence was not called. Questioned by Mr C. S. Thomas, counsel for Knight, about the transfer of 400 shares by him to Knight, Lange, managing director of the company, saici that on his part no “trickery” was intended. His Honour: You knew the document was not genuine? Lange: As far as I was concerned it was genuine. It was so that he would be entitled to sell. His Honour: Entitled to sell?—I didn’t really mean that. Trick Not Intended His Honour: The transactions meant either that Knight was buying shares to be paid for in future and that he was entitled to sell, or it was a trick. You say it was not a trick. —That’s so. His Honour then said that he could not take the case any further and counsel agreed that he should address the jury. “The case has taken an unusual turn,” said His Honour to the jury. “The witness had to acknowledge either that the transfer of 400 of his shares to Knight was a trick, or humbug to mislead prospective investors, or that it was a genuine transfer to Knight to be paid for later. The Crown set out to prove that Knight had no shares of his own to sell, only the company’s shares, which he had to account for. If in addition he was the owner of shares to sell he could do what he liked with the money he received, although morally and legally he would have to pay Lange for the shares transferred to him.

“It appears that the Crown cannot take the case further and that dishonesty has not been proved,” added His Honour. “You can take it as a direction from me that there is no evidence to justify you in finding him guilty.” Without retiring, the jury found Knight not guilty.