JOHNSTON CONVICTED

Hokitika Guardian, 20 November 1929, Page 6

JOHNSTON CONVICTED

ON SIX FRAUD CHARGES

PLEA FOR FINE ONLY

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

INVERCARGILL, Nov. 19,

The hearing of six charges of false pretences against David Noilsen Johnston in connection with the Quarterly Dividends and National House Purchase concerns was resumed before Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury in the Supreme Court to-day. The second hearing was commenced at noon on Monday. The jury retired at 6.45 p.m., and returned at 8.25 p.m., with a verdict of guilty on all six counts.

“I think the circumstances have been set out at length in the evidence,” said Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for the accused, in the course of an earnest plea, for leniency. “However, I. should like to stress the fact of this man’s physical condition. A diseased bone in his head lias, ever since the development of the trouble, severely affected his health. Your Honour will doubtless appreciate that to the prisoner—a lay preacher—the fact of the convctions themselves, must amount to a very severe punishment. Moreover, he has been subject to two lengthy trials, with all their consequential mental strain and suffering. There seems no doubt but that he was induced into the scheme by Taverner. Till! prisoner is a married man with two children, and has had a hard struggle in life. Up to the present, lie has borne an excellent character, and has boon held in the highest esteem. While 1 am not cognisant of Your Honour’s vipw-point as to the fit and proper punishment in eases of this nature, I respectfully desire to refer Your Honour to two somewhat similar cases' of commercial frauds, in both of which the late Mr Justice Sim admitted the prisoners to probation. (Counsel here cited the particular eases.)

Resuming his plea, Mr White said: “I have had the advantage of perusing the report of the Probation- Officer, which recommends probation. The prisoner is not a plan likely Jo get into trouble again. There is, I should 1 imagine, not the remotest chance of his coming before the Court again. I respectfully submit that a monetary penalty would meet the case, and be consistent with the line adopted by Mr Justice Sim in those previous commercial fraud cases.”

■ln reply to His Honour, AH MacAlister, Crown Prosecutor, said lie did not desire to add anything further.

His Honour deferred sentence till Friday.