THE “ARGUS”CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1921, Page 4

THE “ARGUS”CASE

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION. AUCKLAND, April li. •‘Argus,” the eleven-year-okl boy, and j his father, Charles Louis Copeland, who wore before Air Poynton, S-AL, in the Magistrate's Court in January last in connexion with their fortune-telling entertainment, were under discussion at the Supreme Court to-day, Air Justice Adams presiding, when Air Fleming ap- ' pealed on the father’s behalf against the conviction recorded against him by the Magistrate. Air Meredith appeared for respondent, Detective-Sergeant Cummings, who was the informant in the original ease. Air Fleming said the Lower Court ease had been taken under section 261 of tlie Crimes Act. That section was a ‘ copy of the. English Witchcraft Act of 1733. The whole point therefore, resolved itself into a question of whether or not an intention to deceive was an ingredient in the offence. In the ease of McGrath v. Vine, Air Justice Edwards had held that an intention to de- , reive must lie proved, and also that an intention to deceive formed an essential part of the offence. 'I lie Judge in that case said if that was, not the law. then any person who playfully •‘cut I the ; irds” to tell his friend’s fortune was guilty of an offence. He might have gone further, added Air Fleming ; and pointed out that if His reading ol • the law was incorrect, the prophets H old and the apostles themselves, it on earth to-day, would have been liable U , lie indicted under „tho section. Tlie i Magistrate had found these facts: (1' , Tlint defendant and his son “Argus” , had undertaken to tell future events. ; ! (2) The defendant honestly believed , . that, in conjunction with, his son, he could . toll the said future events, 3) There ! was no intention on the part of the do- , fondant to deceive the public. The defendant and his son, continued counsel, usually appeared at picture houses where they put on “telepathic stunt,” the telepathic power being induced by I hypnotism. “Argus” had reached the ,! stage when he could hypnotise himself, i Tlie Afagistrate had heard the ease with 1 an open, mind, and had had an exlr’bi-

tion of the boy’s powers, which had convinced him that the lad had wonderful telepathic powers.' His Honour: i am bound to accept the Alagisirate’s conclusion that there was no intention to deceive, and that the deff-mhmt honestly believed (nlthoiijfh it might he difficult for souk people to understand it) that his son could foretell future events. Air Meredith argued that the words of the Cl imes .Vet, under which the proceedings were taken were so different from those in the Vagrancy Act that cases decided on the latter had no bearing on the present proceedings. Air Justice Edwards had never intended to say that an intention to deceive was an absolute ingredient of the offence. The word •‘pretend’' gave place to '‘undertake'’ to tell the future in the section in the Crimes Act which had not been whittled down. With the phrase “in-

tention to deceive” there was an absolute prohibition. His Honour: You say the mischief is in the telling of fortunes, and not in the -motive behind the fortune-telling-Air Meredith: That is so. There is a (lass of impressionable, neurotic people who are weak enough not to exercise their judgment, who believe in fatalism, and who are quite capable enough to believe anything some fortune-tellers say, so as to wa-rp their judgment and interfere with their activities. In answer to His Honour, Air Fleming said that the majority of those who saw “Argus” believed in his powers. There was no claim to the super natural in the sense that by no ordinary known process of the human mind can that be 1 done. Jlis Honour: is it not a claim to •super natural powers? Mr Fleming: No. Theiv are five senses which we all possess, but it is considered there is another sense which is either developing or lias been lost, a sense which a great many people possess in greater or less degree. His Honour: Tn what sense can for-tune-telling he held to he other than supernatural ? Air Fleming replied that the bov‘s mental faculties, under hypnosis, became abnormal, and having perceived a germ of thought, he was able to some extent to pierce the future, and tell what that thought would become. There was no profession to tell fortunes, but “Argus” in many eases could answer questions relating to tlie future. There was nothing supernatural in it. The question was purely one of law. Ilis Honour said the case wits one of some interest and importance, and lie would give His judgment to-morrow.