FORTUNE-TELLING

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 169, 13 April 1921, Page 8

FORTUNE-TELLING

A CONVICTION SUSTAINED

FORMER JUDGE’S DECISION REVERSED

By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, April 12.

The conviction of Charles L. Copeland, father of "Argus," for undertaking to tell fortunes, imposed some months ago by Air. Poynton, S.M., was upheld by Air. Justice Adams, at tho Supreme Court!. Copeland’s appeal against hi= conviction was based on tho ground that there was no intention to deceive. His Honour said that the Magistrates 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 Afr. Justice Edwards upon which appellant replied. In his judgment, Afr. Justice Adams said that section .261 of the Crimes Act dealt with three separate classes of offences, and for the purposes of this appeal the section should ba read: "Everyone is liable to one year’s impisonment with hard labour, who undertakes to tell fortunes." . Treating the case as one Of a first impression, and reading the section in that way, there would appear to be no difficulty. The word “undertakes” had no fraudulent or sinister meaning. Counsel for appellant had admitted that to succeed in his appeal ho must show Cyit an intent to deceive was an ingredient in the offence, and ho relied upon the decision of Mr. Justice Edwards in M'Grath v. Vine, than there must be such an intention. That was a strong decision in appellant’s favour, and His Honour had considered it with tlio cure duo decisions of flint learned Judge, but he had been unable to follow it. The mischief intended to be remedied by the section in question, continued His Honour, was the injurious effect upon the 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 case 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 a person, whether honestly believing in his power to do so, or intending to deceive, undertook to tell another person’s fortune. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed, with costs .£lO 10s.