A £5 NOTE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 266, 4 August 1921, Page 6

A £5 NOTE

SWINSON’S CASE DETERMINED JUDGE DISCHARGES ACCUSED His Honour Mr. Justice Reed, sitting in the Supreme Court yesterday with a jury of twelve, directed the discharge of John Swinson, advertising contractor, who was charged with tho unlawful manufacture of the photographic negative of a banknote. Swinson was the official advertising contractor for the Springboks’ Dominion tour, and the reproduction of the note was made in connection with a competition. Tho action was brought under section 360 of the Crimes Act, subsections B and D. Tho section provides that a person Is liable to imprisonment for fourteen .years with har’d labour who without lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall he on him); “(b) Engrave or make upon any plate or- material anything purjxjrting to be, or apparently intended to resemble, the whole or any part of any debenture or bank note." or "(d) knowingly has in his possession any such plate for printing any part of any debenture or bank note.” Mr. P. 8. K. Macassoy appeared for the Crown, and Mr. M. F. Luckio for Mr. Macassey said that tho section of the Act under which the accused was charged definitely forbade a person to have possession of any photographic plate on which there was a photograph of a banlc note or a debenture. This was further emphasised in section 301. No matter how striking the bona fide of the person concerned, might be, the Act was definite on the point. There could be no "lawful excuse.” If the prisoner had printed 500 notes, and tliey had been exact copies of a £5 note, nnd had been distributed, some unscrupulous person might have put them into circulation as legal tender. The Crown Prosecutor called formal evidence to prove the publication of replicas and of. the placards on which were pasted the reproductions of the note. Detective-Sergeant Andrews, who conducted the Ywlice investigation of tho case, said that the prisoner had been quite frank, and had explained the printing of the reproduction by means of a usual photographic process. Swinson had contended that ho had acted in ignorance of th© law, and had reproduced the notes merely in aid of his plan for effectively advertising the tour of theSpringboks. Accused had expressed the opinion that no bank would pass tho reproduction, as they were printed on ordinary paper, and the reverses were blank. Counsel for prisoner: And the reproductions are only about two-thirds of tho size of the usual £5 note.” Counsel explained that the colouring of the note was an easy matter. It had been done by an employee in Swinson's studio. For the accused, Mr. Lnckie contended tliat the reproduction had been made merely for advertising purposes and there was no suspicion—as the Crown had admitted—that they were produced for any dishonest purpose. There was no suggestion of criminal intent. ino accused was brought up for an offence the punishment for which was a term ot imnrisonment not exceeding fourteen years. There was a difference between English and New Zealand law on the point. In the English statute, provision was made for guilty intent. Counsel referred to the difference m.between the reproduction of the £5 note and a genuine note. “Bv accident,” remarked His Honour, "I have a £s' note in my pocket. He compared the two notes. I can see the disparity in size,” he added. Continuing. Mr. Luckrn said that Swinson had no guilty knowledge of m aswn of lawful authority as defined in the statute. Had the accused made a complete copy of thb £5 note at fu 1 size, back and' front, on banknote parchment, then he could have been indicted under another section. But he had not done that- and even if he had, guilty intent" would have had to be proved. Th „T KXr'SSW “te to, to,, ly with the legal aspect of the case, and the jui-v was relieved from attendance until after counsel’s addresses had been lieurd bv th© Judp®. „ Legal argument as to the question “lawful excuse” occupied the rest of the morning. There was an interlude when Mr Justice Reed asked counsel for the accused: “Is your excuse the absence of criminal intention, and lack of knowledge of the law?”

Counsel: That is so. . , Reed: If a man printed hundreds of these notes, dropped them on Lambton Quaj, would he b« liable to prosecution? Mr. Lnckie thought the example we a the jury, His Honour announced his decision. The’ tute ’2i! thought, was clear on the point. A Ihoudi he was sure the accused had not had adv dishonest mtent, the evidence and araument "did not enable H e HonWA’Sh >■”<£ si.. )8 »< a. fc?”: tting toeVagainst that, Mr. Lnckie?” Counsel: No, sir. _ The Judge, continuing, eatd that the CoXould toect rtTaccted, in cerx iriS ed.” he said. , v Swinson then left the dock.