SEQUEL TO CONVICTION

Chronicle (Levin), 9 April 1946, Page 5

SEQUEL TO CONVICTION

— Press Association

FORMER CHIEF .POSTMASTER CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT

By Telegraph

WELLINGTON, April 8. The Court of Appeal today commenced hearing a case stated by the Supreme Court at Auckland arising from the trial at Auckland in February of Charles Clark, retireci chief postniaster, - of Auckland, on six counts of forgery of special oil fuel licences, ' when the jury found Clark guilty on all counts. The questions which the Court of Appeal is now asked to determine are as follow: — 1. Was the Supreme Court Judge corr; rect in deciding that it is a question of law: (1) Wuether or not the signatures to the documents in question were material parts of the said documents? v2j Whother or not the said docuineats were "false documents" within the vlelinition given in the Crimes Act? 2. Whether, if the answer to tffe first question is in the affirniative, the supreme Court Judge was correct in law in directing the jury that the signatures were material parts of the j documents, and that the documents j were false documents within the mean- ( ing of the Crimes Act. 3. Whether the Supreme Court Judge was correct in directing the jury that the only questions of fact for the de- . termination of the jury were: (1) Whether accused knew that the docu- ; ments were false; i.e., whether he knew j that the purported signatures were! fictitious? (2) Whether accused made 1 lalse documents with. the intention thatj they should be acted upon as genuine; j i.e., as documents which wer,e reguiar tnroughout and made by the persons who purported to make them? ■ 4. Whether the documents are valid as special oil fuel licences, notwithstanding the fictitious signatures thereto. . 5. Whether, if the answer to the | fourth question is in the affirmative, | prisoner can in law he guilty ' of 1 forgery? 6. Whether the prisoner honestly he- ! lieved' the documents concerned were j genuine special oil fuel licences, not- j withstanding the fictitious signatures thereto, he can, as a matter of law, he found guilty of forgery?" 7. Whether it is a matter for the| jury to determine whether or not pris- ! oner knew as a fact that the adding of j fictitious signatures to the documents concerned made them false documents? 8. Whether, if prisoner did not know as a fact that the documents were false documents, he can be found guilty of forgery? j Pending the determination of thei ahove questions "by the Court of Appeal, I prisoner ' was relqased on bail. Mr. A. E. Currie, for the Crown, raised the preliminary point that the appeal was out of time, and stated that the Crown would not consent to an extension of time unless grounds were shown for it. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., for prisoner, pcinted out that, under Section 7 of rhe Criminal Appeal Act, 1945, time had not yet commenced to run against prisoner, as he had not been sentenced. Under the Regulations, continued Mr. Johnstone, prisoner was authorised to issue petrol licences, but when applications were made to him directly, he did not require, and was not bound to re'qiure, completion of the form contemplated hy the Regulations. He was the District Oil Fuel Controller and had ample power under the Regulations to exempt anyone from the provisions of these regulations. There were six licences concerned | in these proceedings, said Mr. Johnstone, and these were dated and marked with the official date stamp. All tbe powers of the Oil Fuel Controller were delegated to prisoner. He had made out all these lorms in his own handwriting and the signatures on them were in his handwriting, without any attempt to disguise it. The forms were handed to the recipients in his own office and no record of these licences was kept, hut no 'regulation required such a record. "These documents are not forgeries," said Mr. Johnstone, "but. genuine documents, which are what they purport to he; that is, licences to enahle people to get petrol. Clark was authorised to sign and could sign in any way he chose. The document in each case was made on behalf of the Controller, who did exist, and the person making it on his hehalf had authority to make it, and these documents were thus not false documents within the definition of the Crimes Act." The question whether or not these licences were false documents was for the jury to decide under the Judgff'S direction, and not for the Judge alone to decide, counsel continued. It had been held by the learned trial Judge that fictitious signatures made the documents false in these circumstances. He determined it as a question of law in every case. Mr. Johnstone submit^ ted that the trial Judge had been wrongidn this, and that it was for the jury to fincl whether signatures in their usual form were material to the genuineness of the document.