SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2840, 3 August 1916, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. ; In the Supreme.Court yesterday afternoon the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) gave his reserved judgment in the case of M'Carthy v. Marks. . This was a case on appeal from the decision of Miv D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., who convicted M'Carthy on July. 24, 1915, of tho ■■ theft of certain articles of cutlery, and blacksmith's paring-knives, and rugs. The defendant was found by a police officer by night in Willis Street in possession of the goods mentioned,'but all efforts to trace the ownership of the goods had failed. Tho accused, in his evidence, stated . that he purchased the article's from a man called Thomson. The Magistrate,, however, disbelieved the evidence of' the defendant.'and convicted him. Mr. V. W. Jackson, who appeared for the appellant, contended that a statement made as to the purchase of goods, however untruthful, was not sufficient to justify a conviction for theft, that ■it must be proved that the goods had been actually stolen, and relied upon the. case of- Rex v. Trainor, a decision of the High Court of Australia,-which decided that before a person could be convicted of theft it must first be proved that the goods- had been stolen. Mr. P. S. K. Macasscy, for the Crown, contended that all the circumstances of the case must be taken into consideration, in order to establish whether or not a crime had been committed, nnd that a jury could, from the falsity or improbability of the evidence of the defendant and the surrounding circumstances draw the irresistible inference that the goods had been stolen, that the Magistrate'sat as a jury, and if there was any evidence to justify his finding the conviction must stand. Mr. Macassey adniitted that tho Australian case was against him, but contended that the facts of that case were distinguishable, and that the Australian case was in conflict with the English decisions. The Chief Justice, in a lengthy judgment, upholding the conviction, dismissfid the appeal. He decided that the ; theft could be established by circumstantial evidence, and that it was not necessary to give absolute proof that the goods had been.stolen before an accused person could be convicted of theft.