WRESTLERS GET OFF.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1923, Page 1

WRESTLERS GET OFF.

SUNNI AND GUDDJNG. [BY TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, Nov. 6. The ease was continued at Auckland Supreme Court to-day, in which the two professional wrestlers, .Mahomed A'i Sunni and Theodore (■ndding, were charged with conspiring to defraud John and Annie Sereombo of £BOS, and with cheating in hotting, and cheating in wrestling. Alter evidence on behalf of Sunni had been given, Justice Stringer asked the Crown Prosecutor what ease lie had against Sunni. Ilis Honour said that the evidence of Sercomhe and his wife in regard to Sunni visiting their house on two specific occasions had been absolutely refuted hy overwhelming evidence. Screombc was a discredited witness, in that he was an accomplice, and that he was attempting to swindle other people. The Crown Prosecutor said lie would prefer the ease to go to the jury, frail as the evidence was. Ilis Honour: “T shall tell the jury pretty plainly they could not possibly in justice or reason, convict Sunni on the evidence. Mr Singer on hehali ol (Kidding] said the charges of conspiracy must drop. Ilis Honour: It is certainly not a conspiracy lo defraud Sercomhe and liis wife. On the contrary, if there was a conspiracy, it was to enrich them. Mr Singer added that the charge oi false pretences must also go, and also the charge, of cheating at betting, for it was admitted that Cudding had not helled. Again, if Sunni was to he believed. i here had been no cheating at play, namely, during the wrestling. Ilis Honour: Did he attempt to cheat f You have (bidding's ow n stalemcut that he did! Mr Sing, r: !i is not sworn, and, under the eii eumsi nliecs, ,Sercomhe "a - capable ol getting Cudding to support his story. The Crown Prosecutor contended that Sunni had doubled had; in winning the belli. His Honour, summing up, said the ease was another happy instance oi the engineer being ‘‘hoist with his own petard.” Kerc.nube engineered the swindle, and he was the man who lost money. The ease would have presented a very different and simple aspect n Sercomhe had been indicted witii the two accused in a conspiracy to ,Icfrnml the Indians whose money they were supposed to get. ll the three had been charged, ii was difficult te see hot/, on their own admission, Sereomhe and Cudding could have escaped. In the circumstances, lie would direct the jury that they could not possibly convict Sunni. The correspondence between Sunni and Cudding showed it was Cudding who was proposing a ••frame up,’’ and Sunni refused to have anything to do with it. it "'as tiills impossible to convict Sunni, and the conspiracy charge fell to the ground. As regards Cudding, no charge of conspiracy could he sii|vpurlcd against, hint as it took two people lo form a conspiracy. The two other founts were cheating in betting, and cheating in playing a game. Cudding had done neither. The question was whether In had been guilty of attempting to cheat. The jury found both 'not guilty” on all counts.