JURY DISAGREES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10616, 15 June 1920, Page 5

JURY DISAGREES

THE CAMERA CASE NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN AUCKLAND. In a case which has aroused a good deal of interest in Auckland the jury nt the Supreme Court failed to agree, and His Honour Mr Justice Chapman ordered a new trial. The case, commonly known as tho "Camera Case," was that in which Frank Dawsey and Henry Edgar Colliding were charged with conspiring to defraud Allan Donaldson (22) of £l3O, and with false pretences oyer the same transaction, while Goulding M-as accused of theft of £l5O, and Dawsey of stealing photographic plant in which Donaldson had a half interest. The transaction involved a partnership in an itinerant instantaneous photograph scheme. Mr -T. A. Tole, K.C., prosecuted, and the accused were defended by Mr Allan Moody. Mr Moody said he thought it unnecessary for Dawsey and Goulding to go into the . witness box. It wa.s not the duty of counsel to get guilty men off. but merely to see that the evidence against accused was good and sufficient. Both men had clean records. The outstanding fact in Dawsoy's favour was the deed of partnership. Donaldson had taken none of the steps always at his hand to hare, the partnership dissolved. He had given no notice of his intention to draw out. Donaldson honestly believ?d his sha.ro to be worth £l5O. He had admitted that tho business was there to be done by the right sort of men. The fact that Donaldson had gone to a solicitor proved that he had ample opportunity of making inquiries and having expert; advice on tho law. Donaldson had taken no steps whatever to show his objection to Dawsev going to Sydney. The onus of proving intent was on the prosecution, and nothing had been brought to show tho guilt; of Goulding and Dawsey. The latter might have acted i'oolishlv. going to Sydney, but he had notified his partner and was not guilty. Mr Tole, taking the other side of the question, drew, attention to the letter, -'I flpi on my way to the Ashhprton show. . . I am thinking of going afterwards to Sydney. . . Write me bv return post. . ." That was on March Dawsey never went to Ashburton. On March ljth he applied for a permit to leave NewZealand, the next day he got his tic-k----et', and the next he joined Goulding on board the boat. This was a fortnight after the partnership was farmed. The cameras were not the only two in Ne>w Zealand, and the "secret" process was no secret. Dawsey showed Donaldson, his partner, nothing. He had no right to take away partnership property. THE JUDGE'S COMMENT. Summing up, His Honour asked tho jury to pay particular attention to tho indictment. There were- two counts against the two men together, and one other against each man individually. On the conspiracy, count conviction rested on the jury's decision Whether or not the' thing was from tho beginning a swindle. They would have to satisfy themselves that the swindle began with the first advertisement. The jury was entitled to take the whole conduct of the two accused o*er tlie whole period. They had given no explanation except through counsel in this court. His Honour traversed Mr Moody's explanation for accused not giving evidence, tha* it would be a waste of time, p.Tir] Mr Tole's comment that no time to get at the truth would be wasted. He referred to Donaldson's tale of being cajoled and regrertting-.it. There was the partnership agreement, and the jury must consider whether - were part of a scheme to take Donaldson's money. Subsequent proceedings and the appearance of other individuals operating the camera that should have been' used by Donaldson were to be considered, right up tp the time Dawsey and Goulding were found in close association on board tho steamer with all the property of the partnership, and without Donaldson's knowledge. It was also to be considered whether the. whole system of instantaneous photography was not a fraud, and also whether such a business had any reality apart from stock. No evidence had shown that the process was rare and secret. Witnesses had said bath the cameras and tho method were common. If that were so the goodwill payment was "by false pretence. Hard work was no subject for goodwill. There had been no explanation of the fact that Dawsey was going away with tho partnership property. But a clear out-and-out swindle must be seen before a conviction could be entered. ' Pending their nev/ trial tVu> two accused were released on their former tail.