CHARGES FAIL

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 93, 16 October 1940, Page 6

CHARGES FAIL

SALE OF SHARES

UNUSUAL TURN TO CASE

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, October 15. A verdict of not guilty was returned by a jury in the Supreme Court in the case against Donald Ottrey Austin Knight, salesman, who was charged with theft in failing to account for moneys received from the sale of shares in Lange's Mobik Gas Producer, Ltd. The verdict was returned at the direction of Mr. Justice Northcroft after Robert Stewart Lange had admitted, when cross-examined, that Knight was entitled to sell shares transferred to him by Lange. The case for the defence was not called. The charges against Knight were that he committed theft in failing' to account for moneys received for shares on terms requiring him Fo account for them to Lange's Mobile Gas Producer. Ltd. They concerned £60 obtained from Arthur Shaw in December, 1939, and £40 on January 15, £10 from James Mayo, Ouruhia. on December 8, and £50 from Richard William Gill, Blenheim, on December 13. Questioned by Mr. C. S. Thomas, counsel for Knight, about the transfer of 400 shares by him to Knight, Lange, managing director of Lange's Mobile Gas Producer, Ltd., Christchurch, said that on his part no "trickery" was intended. QUESTIONS BY JUDGE. His.Honour: You knew the document was not genuine? Lange: As far as 1 was concerned it was genuine. It was so that he would be entitled to sell. His Honour: Entitled to sell? Lange: I didn't really mean that. His Honour: The transactions meant either that Knight was buying shares to be paid for in the future and that he was entitled to sell, or it was trick. You say it wasn't a trick? Lange: That is so. His Honour then said he could not take the case any further and counsel agreed that he should address the jury. "The case has taken an unusual turn," said his Honour to the jury. "Witness had to acknowledge either that the transfer of 400 of his shares to Knight was a trick or humbug to mislead prospective investors or that it was a genuine transfer to Knight to be paid for later. The Crown set out to prove that Knight had no shares of his own to sell, only- the company's shares, which he had to account for. If, in addition, he was the owner of shares to sell he could do what he liked with the money he received, though morally and legally he would have to pay Lange for the shares transferred to him. It appears that the Crown cannot take the case further and that dishonesty has not been proved. You can take it as a direction from me that there is no evidence to justify you in finding him guilty."

Without retiring the jury found Knight not guilty.