CHARGE WITHDRAWN

Hokitika Guardian, 5 August 1925, Page 3

CHARGE WITHDRAWN

[by TELEGKArn —I’EIl I’ItKSS ASSOCIATION,] AUCKLAND. Aug. 4. The unusual course of withdrawing a case from the jury was taken by Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court today in the trial of Stanley Forbes Gough Williams, for defrauding the Crown by selling stock and chattel" covered by a bill ot sale. Air Pat terson, fur I lie Crown, said llial Williams was a soldier settler, who. in 192:t. took up a Crown section, and received considerable advances Ini I lie purchase of stock and implements. He gave bills of sale to the Crown ovci bis chattels and stock. In October. 1921. be wrote to the Commissioner ol Crown Lands, stating lie had sold some of tho stock, and had_ used t lie money to buy other stock. The Commissioner replied that, all the money received from the sale of the stock had to bo remitted to the Crown Lands Office direct, and explained that the money could be rc-advanccd. In J.uiilary of 1923. tile Commissioner wrote to Williams, asking if lie had branded all bis stock according to the requirements of the bill of sale. Williams replied that be bad. Later the Crown Lands Ranger visited the property, and found some of the stock mentioned in the bill of sale were missing. In August. 1924. the accused who bad then left bis fielding, wrote to the Commissioner stating he bad sold some of the stock in order to keep going. He also complained that the Government bad not carried out its obligation, and stated that be had lost £450 ot bis own monev as well as lour years of woik. AY.'AY. Barton. Fields Inspector, for the Crown Lands Department said that „f :V_> head of stock oricinallv bought for accused, there were nine on the place when he made his last inspection. The accused might lmve said, to him tlmt some of tbe steel; bad boon lost. Accused, iii evidence, gave details ot ids dealings in rattle since 1923. He had sold some of tbe rows for a total of £ls 17s 6d. and be used tbe money in living and working expenses. When he left the farm be took away only three or four pounds in money, and his blankets He started on the section with £220 capital. The first year’s working showed a profit ot £6l. the second rear be was £'2 to tbe good: hut in the third year there was a-low of £219. He also made losses in the two following years. His Honour said that it seemed that there could Iw no defence to the charge. The matter was more or less trivial, as far as the amount involved was concerned. It was probable the Crown did not realise the amount was so small when the information was

laid. There was no doubt that, technically, an offence had been committed. Air Patterson said he was prepared to admit it was a trivial, technical offence.

His Honour said he did not propose to go further with the matter, and place the indignity of a. conviction on the accused. He would withdraw the ease from the jury, and would not ask for a verdict. The accused would be discharged.