Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE "ARGUS" CASE.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION. (FJUM ASSOCIATION TEXEOBAM.) AUCKLAND, April 11. "Argus." the elovon-year-old DOy > anfi fciß father, Charles Louis Copland, who were before Mr Poynton, S.M., m the Magistrate's v Court in January last in connexion with their fortune-telling entertainment, were under discussion at the Supreme Court to-day, Mr Justice Adams presiding, when >lr Fleming appealed on the father's behalf against the conviction recorded against him by the Magistrate. Mr Meredith appeared for respondent, DeteAive-Sergcant Cummings, who was the informant in the original case. Mr Fleming said tho lower Court case had been taken under section Zol Vtf the Crimes Act. That section was a .'eopy of the English Witchcraft Act of ■yffl. The whole point, therefore, resolved itself into a question of whether Aor not an intention to deceive was an ; : ingredient in tic offence. In the case )of MrGrath v. Vine, Mr Justice Edwards had held that an intention to deceive must be proved, and also that \ an intention to deccivo formed an essential part of the offence. The Judge , , in that case said if that was not tho | Jaw, then any person Who playfully cut the cards" to tell his friend's fortune was guilty of an offence. He might \hare gone further, added Mr Fleming, -.. wad pointed out that if his reading ot .the law was incorrect, the prophets or • old and the apostles themselves, if on earth to-day, would have -been liable to -be' indioted under the section. The Magistrate had found those facts: (1J ■That" defendant and his son "Argus" had I undertaken to tell future events. (2) The defendant honestly believed that, "in conjunction with his son, he could .tell the said future events. (3) There ■.. was no intention on the part of defendant to deceive the public. The defendant and his son, continued counsel, .■'?,| usually appeared at picture houses, -iufcero they put on a "tewpathio stunt." 'Hhe telepathic power being ?nduced by "Argus" had reached the 'Vs3»fce. when he could hypnotise himself. -she Magistrate had heard the case with fail open mind, and had i-ad an exhibiof the boy's powers, which had coriV |%ced him that the lad had wonderful ■' f'Meiwktnio powers--flipSs Honour-: I am bound to accept !vm Magistrate's conclusion that thero ' /.ma no intention to deceive, and that ■■'•■ Jap, defendant honestly believed (al- ; rffiush it might be difficult for some • to understand it) that his son :>'WuTd foretell future events. Meredith argued that the words of f ]ihe : •Crimes Act, under which the pro--*;Mdings were taken, were so different vffipni those in tthe vagrancy Act that .VOpaSB decided on the latter had no bear;bn tho present proceedings. Mr Edwards bad never intended to ' f'aAy'that ah intention to deceive was an jhgredienfc of.the offence. Tho %JworJi '"pretend".' gave place to "uhder- '" W tell.the future in,the section. r the Crimes Act which had Tibt been down, .With the phrase "int(J deceive" there was an abdo■;/*lHtg prohibition.:•■■ • mischief is '■>. -.ih :tho telling of fortunes, and not in ': ! ; s ißi'ntttM\*«).belhind,th6 fortune-telling P is 50... There is a impressionable, neurotic people A;;^TOOYBW , '-'weak enough, hot to exercise ; judgment, 'whtfTielieve in fatalism, ;^iqta::^hp. , .iii > 6.''.gtiite capable enough to ;:;sbw<w,'' anything some fortune-tellers. ■:.-m&ffi6&. as' to ; warp' their judgment and Witlh." their.activities. to his' Honour, Mr ; Flemv;/ipis:«*id: that .the majority of those who A >g«3- ;ibeliev(9d in his powers, claim to; the supernatural sense, that Tiy ho ordinary known of ( the/hutnaii mind can tthat be <it hot ■ a claim. to f powers P >" r ' ''" ■' ■■'■' ' ■■■y'v P'P^*^^ 1 " 111^1 "v N> *v Thti,ro :"• are five 'which' wd! all posset, hut it is fMCflhaidered there is another sense which or has heen lost, a if .p^jeg^' I&ii; what nense can forf};f^ M ne;tellhjg^l)«ifheld' fa be other than replied' that the boy's £fomental 7facuities, •> tinder hypnosis, be--J -afla--'having perceived a. SJW*w wioug^t,;'he was able.to some fierce vtJw' future and tell a^wOJ*6^t;tlroultt: hecbhie. There '■*& fortunes,- bub Wm&t&Fk castes'eoijia - answer : future. There supernatural init. "The n *s!&>w»&'#relji( one" of;JawV -■ and he i^^W^.liW^JMaginWt.'td^nioitoW.'

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19210412.2.43

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17117, 12 April 1921, Page 7

Word count
Tapeke kupu
661

THE "ARGUS" CASE. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17117, 12 April 1921, Page 7

THE "ARGUS" CASE. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17117, 12 April 1921, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert