COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5823, 27 November 1879, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

Wednesday, November 26. (Before their Honors the Chief Justioe, Mr. Justice Johnston, Mr. Justice Gillies, Mr. Justice Richmond, and Mr. Justice Williams.) REGINA V. BOTtAN. This was a criminal case, defendant, Michael Boylan, having been convicted at Napier for a breach of the Arms Act. Several points had been reserved for argument before the Court of Appeal, and Mr. Bell now appeared in support of the conviction, Mr. Chapman (on behalf of Mr. Lee, Napier) appearing for Biylan. The Court, after hearing counsel, reserved judgment. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Gillies, and Mr. Justice Johnston.) REGINA V. WALSH. This was a case reserved by his Honor the Chief Justice at the last sitting of the Circuit Court in Wellington. There were two cases, and in the first several points were reserved, but it was agreed by counsel that as only one point was reserved in the second case, that should be argued first. The prisoner was secretary of a benefit society, but his subscriptions being fourteen weeks in arrear he had become what the rules term “ unfinancial,” and as such was disentitled to the benefits of sick allowance and funeral allowance until his arrears were paid up. He was convicted of larceny of money, the property of the society—(l) As a co-partner in the society ; and (2) as a joint beneficial owner in the funds of the society. Mr. Fitz Gerald, for the prisoner, contended that the prisoner was not a co-partner, and this was admitted by the prosecution. Mr. Fitz Gerald then submitted that, as the prisoner had ceased to be a financial or benefit member of the society, he was not a “ beneficial owner" within the meaning of the Larceny Amendment Act, 1872.

Mr. Bell, for the Crown, was contending that the prisoner still had some interest in the funds of the society, when he was stopped lay the Court, who were satisfied that the conviction was right. Judgment was given, affirming the decision of the Court below, on ‘ the ground that although the prisoner had not any immediate benefit in the society, he was still a co-owner of the funds, and as such a beneficial owner within the meaning of the statute. The sentences of six months' imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, were therefore confirmed.