LAW REPORT.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XL, Issue 18, 5 May 1915, Page 331

LAW REPORT.

(“ Times Law Reports,” Vol. xxxi, page 257.) [Court of Criminal Appeal. (Lord Reading, C.J., Rowlatt and Shearman, JJ.). — 22nd February, 1915.] Rex v. Light. Criminal Law False Pretences Obtaining Goods by — Prosecutor not misled—Conviction for attempt. Though a person cannot be convicted of obtaining goods by false pretences if the mind of the prosecutor has not been misled thereby, yet he may in such circumstances be convicted of an attempt to obtain goods by false pretences. The appellant, Arthur Dennison Light, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 20th January last, before the Recorder, of attempting to obtain money by false pretences, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in the second division. It appeared that the appellant, representing himself to he the principal of the “British Health Institute,” of Budge-row, E.C., held himself out as competent to analyse urine and advise persons on their health from his analysis. Two gentlemen, suspecting the genuineness of the business, sent him a solution of water coloured with potassium di-chromate and Bismarck brown, with a little soap added. They received in reply letters advising them to undergo courses of treatment, for which a fee was demanded. Mr. Charles Doughty contended that no offence in law had been proved against the appellant. The minds of the prosecutors had not been affected by the representation which was an essential element of the crime of attempting to obtain goods by false pretences. He referred to Reg. v. Roebuck (7 Cox C.C., 126) ; Rex v. Ady (7 C. and P., 140) ; Reg. v. Hensler (11 Cox, 570) ; Reg. v. Mills (7 Cox, 263) ; Reg. v. Button (16 The Times L.R., 525); [l9oo] 2 Q. 8., 597) ; and the Criminal Procedure Act, 1851, section 9. He also submitted that the summing-up of the Recorder did not place the case for the defence sufficiently before the jury. Mr. R. D. Muir, for the prosecution, was not called upon. Mr. Justice Rowlatt, in giving the judgment of the Court, said that it was clear that a man could not be convicted for obtaining goods by false pretences unless the mind of the prosecutor had been misled thereby. In the opinion of the Court, however, it was a complete fallacy to suppose that the same principle applied in cases of attempt only. False pretences were made by a prisoner with the intention of obtaining money. The prosecutor might disbelieve him altogether and refuse to part with any money, or he might send him the money with the sole intention of carrying the matter further. In either case the prisoner made false pretences, intending thereby to get the money, and he failed only because the mind of the prosecutor was not misled as he tried to mislead him. There was no difficulty in holding that in such circumstances the prisoner was guilty of an attempt to obtain goods by false pretences. It was really not an open question, as the point passed sub silentio, as if too clear for argument, in Reg. v. Roebuck [supra), and was expressly determined by Reg. v. Hensler (supra). His Lordship went on to say that the summing-up of the Recorder could not be attacked on the ground suggested by counsel for the appellant, and the appeal was in consequence dismissed. The Court ordered that the sentence should run from the date of conviction. Solicitors—Messrs. Sewell, Edwards, and Nevill for the appellant; the City Solicitor for the respondent.