FALSE ENTRIES.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 March 1919, Page 1

FALSE ENTRIES.

COUNSEL PROTESTS ABOUT MOuE OF SELECTING JURY.

AUCKLAND, March 12

The trial of Stephen Airey on a third charge of embezzlement of funds belonging to the Ilokianga Co-opera-tive Dairy Company, of which he was secretary, was concluded at the Supreme Court to-day. The Grand Jury had six indictments before it, each comprising four counts, namely theft, as being a common thief, falsifying, books and fraudulently omitting to account for moneys received. Each indictment referred to the offences alleged to have been committed on different dates. Accused was tried and acquitted on the first indictment and later he was tried and acquitted on" the second indictment. To-day he was tried on the third indictment containing the four counts. .At the conclusion of accused’s examination, Mr 'Reed referred to the action of the Crown Prosecutor in challenging over thirty jurymen. At the present proceedings the' Crown had practically selected the jury, though he did not believe this would affect the verdict. As far as counsel knew, the action of the Crown was without precedent in New Zealand. Tlis Honour said it had been done before.

Mr Reed: There have never been so many challenges.

His Honour: I think so. In this case a jury with a knowledge of bookkeeping was required. I think Mr Tole acted correctly in challenging those jurymen who in his opinion, had no knowledge of the subject. A special jury should have been secured and chosen before hand. Mr Reed said he had never known so many men to be stood aside by the Crown.

His Honour said it had been done before. Tie remembered a case in which it was necessary to recall men who had been challenged in order to secure the full number of jurymen. Mr Tole said his object had been to secure the most intelligent- jury possible.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the third count (that of falsifying the books of the companjy with intent to defraud), with a strong recommendation to mercy on the ground that the directors of the company were aware of accused’s intemperate hahits and fail ed to take proper precautions . Sentence was deferred.