DOUBLE-HEADED PENNIES

Hokitika Guardian, 7 November 1929, Page 6

DOUBLE-HEADED PENNIES

COUNTERFEITING CHARGE

MAN ACQUITTED AT NAPIER

NAPIER, November 5

Philip Whelan Rarragh was charged in the Supreme Court to-day with having possession of an instrument adapted ifor and intended for counterfeiting copper coins.

A detective stated in evidence that he had occasion to interview accused in Hastings, and in the course of conversation Darragh produced a set ot soldering tools, stating that they were for making double-headed pennies, which, he said, were worth five shillings each.

Questioned by Mr Justice Ostler, witness stated that the set was complete, with the exception of solder, for the splitting of pennies. There was some very fine wire solder found in accused’s bag, but this was not produced in the lower Court.

Prisoner at this .stage pointed out that the split pennies found upon him had rings upon them, pointing to the fact that they had been turned on a lathe. He asked his Honor to examine the pennies, and his Honor did so, remarking that the three certainly bore the mark of having been turned on a lathe, hut the 'fourth looked to him to have been cut by a hacksaw. Prisoner (to witness): How could you make a job of soldering two split pennies together?—l am not a plumber neither am I versed in counterfeiting.

His Honor, after examination of the hacksaw,- stated that it appeared the blade was too thick for sawing down the centre of pennies. It certainly appeared to him as though it was more adapted for woodwork. Accused, in evidence, stated that on the day in question he was arrested, and took his bag round to the Police Station. He showed the police the outfit, and said he was going to experiment with these pennies to try to join them together. The tails were ground off on a lathe in an engineering shop. ihe Crown Prosecutor: Where were they ground down?—l won’t divulge that.

What were you going to do ?—I was going to make double-headed pennies, but I had not made any at that time.

What was the lamp for ?—lt is part of the soldering outfit. Prisoner went back into the dock and addressed the jury, stating that the tools he had were totally unsuitable for making double-headers, “There is a way of making them, and I could demonstrate it thei’e,” he said pointing to counsel’s table, “but it is not that way.’

Summing up, bis Honour sa yd the case was a. simple one. First of, all prisoner said he was intending to make double-headed pennies, and then said tile tools that he had were not suitable It looked to him as though accused was right, and the saw was merely a fret for cutting wood. That, however, did not finish the matter, for accused had in his possession a complete soldering outfit without solder, and lie had told them he intended to attempt to make double-headed pennies. , There was then a question as to whether the making of double-headed pennies constituted counterfeiting, and a Court of three Judges in New South Wales had decided that it did. The whole question for the jury to decide was as to whether or not the instruments found in accused’s possession were suitable for the work for which it was alleged tliev were intended.

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was accordingly discharged.