"ARGUS" CASE.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17118, 13 April 1921, Page 6

"ARGUS" CASE.

.. CONVICTION UPHELD. (PRSSS ASSOCIATIOX TELEGBAM.) AUCKLAND!, April 12. The conviction of Charles L. Copeland, father of Argus," for undertaking to tell fortunes, imposed some months ago, by Mr Poynton, S.M., was upheld by Mr. Justice Adams at the Supremo Court. Copeland's appeal against his conviction was based on tho ground that thero was no intention to deceive. His Honour said the Magistrate's opinion that an intention to deceive was not an ingredient of the offence charged was correct. His Honour's decision therefore reversed a judgment by Mr Justice Edwards upon which appellant relied. In his judgment Mr Justice Adams said that sectidn 261 of the Crimes Act dealt with tlhrcc separate classes of offences, nnd for the purposes of this appeal the section should bo read. '•Everyone is liable to one year's imprisonment with hard labour who undertakes to tell fortunes:" Treating the caso as ono of first impression, nnd reading tho section in that way, there would appear to bo no difficulty. The word "undertakes" had no fraudulent or sinister meaning. Counsel for appellant had admitted that te succeed in his appeal he must show that an intent to deceive was an' ingredient in tho offence, and he relied upon the decision of Mr Justice Edwards in McQrathv. Vine that thero must bo such an intention. .That was a strong decision in appellant's favour, and his Honour iind considered it with the caro due to all decisions of that learned judge, but ho had been unable to follow it. Tho mischief intended to be remedied by the section in question, continued his Honour, was the injurious effect upon Hie mind of credulous persons of attempts to pierce tho veil of the future by predictions not based upon ascertainable facts or according to reason, and that< mischief was as great in the caso of an honest diviner as in the case of a fraudulent charlatan. In his Honour's opinion the offence of undertaking to tell fortunes was complete when the person, whether honestly believing in hi* power to do so or intending to deceive, undertook to tell another person's fortune. Tho appeal was therefore dismissed with, costs, £lO 10s.