LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2201, 14 July 1914, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

' COURT OF APPEAL

CASE OP W. T. YOUNG .!•■:.

ARGUMENT ON LAW POINTS. Law points raised in-the. Supremo Court in May last, during tho trial of William Thomas Young for sedition in connection with his historic, speech in tho Basin Reserve on October. 26, 1913, were argued before the Court of Appeal yesterday, when the Bench was oc- ! cupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr! Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justice Stringer. ..-'■■' • ~ . ■ Young had been imprisoned for three months .by the connection, with this speech—on .a charge! of inciting members of the. publio to resist, the police. Subsequently i' ho Was .tried for sedition (the Crown relying on different words in tho speech for this .charge) and at the first trial the'jury failed to agree. A second, trial took place in May'last, and at the hearing, Mr.; T. 'M.;-Wilford, who appeared for .Young, 'put. in a special plea of previous .conviction, on the grounds that she had;bebu..lawfully. convictfed of tho crimp'.'charge'd in the count, or, counts, on:'which- such plea was pleaded. His .Honour Mr.; Justice Hosking over-ruled this plea of previous conviction. The right to appeal was re, served .to '■ Mr. Wiltord, and the prisoner put in a plea of liot guilty to tho charge. ' ' Tho jury returned a verdict of guilty, but passing of sentence was deferred, until tho points raised by Mr.' Wilford could be argued before' the Court 6f Appeal. •; Iu additiou to the ground *bf previous conviction, counsel for Young appealed against the conviction for sedition on the ground; that evidence of ovents prior to the delivery, of; tho speech had been wrongly admitted • at tho trial. , .'• :■. . Mr. T.M. Wilford and Mr: P.. J. O'Regan appeared for Young yesterday, while the, Solicitor-General (Mr.-J.- W. Salmpnd, K.C.) appeared for tho Crown.. r "'•• y- ' Plaa of'.'Counsel.'; • Mr, .Wilford, in addressing the Court,contended that tho case could be distinguished from that -of Res' v. Holland, in which the Court of Appeal had already pronounced ah!.opinion. ' In Holland's case the plea was "previous acquittal,?' but in thiscase.it was"previous convictionV' Young .having been actually convicted 'and-;sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and bound bver'Ho keep the peace in two sureties -of ; £2so■ each:Again, the charge in Holland's, case con.berned part only of one' of..two speeches 'delivered . ; by v .him,". while! in.,. case the conviction'for' inciting was'de-'' termined upon,the whole of tho speech 'm, '-question' jthouglicertaiu- words had been stressed by tlie Crown. Counsel went on to arguo that Young had already been punished for-this speech.on the.previous conviction, and should not be:;punished again.' "■.".'.-: . _ Mr. O'Regan'submitted that the question for ' tho.TCpurt ■■to-' ['answer'.'- was:' .Would tho defence.be good at common All ; .cbmmon ; - I la'w defences were exprosslySprescryc'd by l Section; 40. ; 0f, .the;; Gnm'esj Act,W and- it. '.was- a'. well-' •known ;rulb; : of common, law'that , a man should,not be'put upon trial twice, oiiiitho '.".' .■'".■•.' :'i ; The SolicitQKCr'eTi^al,.' in replying' to* l.ho."'points,''raised'ih'yi.the other, side, eitied Several authorities to show that an,'accused persphxmigbt be charged i with several.offenSes'arising out of L the; i.same fact. ■ ;;Amohg>p.ther instances, he ;n"nmed-''thp caseTpfA-iari engine-driver,' ;who might be.'charged'with driving, at. an: excessive speed.:;hhd in the cas'e.'.df |.a; fatal? acoident; due; ."to that offence .might';bo charged/with ./manslaughter-— perhaps'more than 1 /one. charge of man-, slajigliter. "■ Ho also-instanced the.case', of -a person, .who ■might be.convicted of. assault, and-'in,-the event' ( of,'his victim, dying, might .'.later-be- ■ Charged' with manslaughter. ■.:"-- : .-,.'.';-•■' ■'."'-. ;"■'■'.'.'. .'■ \ : The Court, reserved-decision. ;: . ..-.■'~' |'-! H THE RECEIPT. FOR CASH. „'.'".'' :.'• ;A CONVICTION AFFIRMED. ' A Crown case.reserved by His HonV our Mr. Justice Edwards, under' Sec. Ltipn>.442:of;;.tho\Crjmes>,'A , ot J '-Vl'9oßi'>'for' the opinion of the Court of Appeal, came on for. hearing yesterday' morning. The Bench was occupied by the "Chief Justice .(Sir. Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, : Mx. ..Justico Edwards, Mr.._ Justice • Cooper,'- and Mr., Justice Stringer. The-case; was that ; of' H.M. the King v. Alexander Gilchrist, ,The Solicitor-General (Mr. 1 J. W.Salmonod, K.C.) appeared'.for' tho C/rpwnj. while Mr. C. E ; Mackay,''bf Wangauui, appeared for!Gilchrist.;-;'.' <■ ;. ,'..:' From;particulars before tho Court.at appeared that Gilclirist. was arraigned' .before.Mr. Justice Edwards at Wanganui on May 28 last, on a cbaTge" that, "on March 24, 1914j; at Wangariui East, he did steal .from .Charles Edward Stewart a' a receipt for £33 7s.' dated. March' 24,' 1914, and duly stamped—purporting to, be an.acknowledgment that' Charles' Edward Stewart had reooivedfrm Alex-* auder Gilchrist ;in cashcthe, sum of £.13 75." To this indictment the prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty.".; In the ca;io forthe Crown _it'was proved that th.j prisoner, being indebted to' Charles Edward Stewart in the'sum/of ha:ided: Stewart a book.of receipt forms and a stamp, and asked him to.make oui; a receipt for the amount. At the same time Gilchrist, took a r cash-box anil placed it oh the table.' Stewart 'asked the prisoiier (Gilchrist) if it was to be chequo or cash, to which' the oner replied "Cash." By that*time, Stewart had writteu put the receipt and to it he added the., word' "cash." The prisoner leaned over to whore Stewart' was sitting, picked! up the receipt, read it carefully and- said: : "That's, fall, right." At the feam'o tiino the prisoner. (Gilchrist)' put his. fingers '.in'' his' wais't-' : coat pocket and in his-trousers pocket, and tlieii saying: /'Oh, the key. is in my coat," ho left the room,'taking the receipt-with him, but having paid-no-thing to' Stewart. Gilchrist subsequently persisted that lie had paid Stewart the money ■ mentioned'iu the ceipt. '.At'the close of.the case for the Crown,. Mr, Mackay (counsel for the prisoner)-.contended that there was no case to go to the jury, and asked His Honour to direct the jury. 'to return a verdict-.of "not guilty." His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards declined to withdraw tlie case and said that, if necessary, he would reserve the question for the opinion of. .'the Court/of Appeal. The trial then proceeded and the jury found tlie prisonpr guilty. , His Honour postponed sentence until the question raised could be/determined by the Court of Appeal,-and prisoner was admitted to bail. The question for the Court-was whether or not the prisoner, was rightly convicted.'. ' After hearing Gilchrist's counsel yesterday, Their Honours, without calling on the So licitorJ-Gcnc.ral, expressed the unanimous opinion that the conviction should be affirmed. ~ ■"