FORTUNE-TELLING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2892, 18 August 1909, Page 18

FORTUNE-TELLING.

PROSECUTIONS AT AUCKLANDAUCKLAND, August 9.

Some time ago a number of informations were sworn against a mumber of persons in Auckland who were reputed! to practice as fortune-tellers of one sort and another. The evidence on which the police relied was collected by two constables, each of whom had his fortune told. However, there was only one man present at each interview, and there was

no corroboration of t«he fact.

These informations came on for hearing before Mt E. C. Cutten, S.M., in. the Police Court a week ago, but when the case against Sbsphemson was called Mr W. J. Napier, who appeared to defend, raised a point of law. Mr Napier aske.d for a ruling that tl*e uncorroborated evidence of a constable who had induced the defendant to tell his fortune would I not support a conviction, in that the con- ' stable by his action made himself a prin- , cipal paTty to the offence. His Worship delivered) his reserved • judgment on the point this morning as follows: — "There can be no doubt that

any person getting his fortune told is j a party to the offence (' Justices of the ! Peaoa Act, 1306/ section 184). It is a ; rule of practice that t<h« uncorroborated 1 testimony of an accomplice is nob accepted as sufficient to support -a conviction. In the Licensing Act there, is a provision that the evidence of the- purchase of | liquor may, if otherwise satisfactory, be ! sufficient to support a prosecution for selling. In the Gaming Act there is a. 1 provision that constables in the course 1 of their duty becoming parties to offences under the act shall be deemed not to ! be accomplices, but there is no such provision in the Police Offences Act, and there is no reason that I know to except from the rule above stated a constable who is a party to the commission of an offence under that act, even though he

; is at the time acting under instructions • ran his superior officer. What oorroi boration is necessary will depend upon. the facts of each particular case, but it ' must be oorroboraliion _in some material ' particular. I can exnress no opinion about tha case as I do not know the fa-cts." i _c facts of the cases were then laid • before his Worship. The only corroborative evidence -available was that one constable saw t-lie oth-ex enter, the house of defendant. Whether this was sufficient corroboration the magistrate refused to say until after he had heard the whole of the evidence for the prosecution. Sub-inspector Hendiry, on behalf of the police, ha^ decided to go on with the cases as originally intended. August 10. Mr E. C. Cutten, S.AI., this afternoon gave his reserved decision in the cases brought by the police against William Stepbenson and Mada-me Wine on charges of being fortune-tellers. Mr Cutten said that the point had been raised by Mr Napier, on behalf of his client Stephenson, that there was no corroborative evidence for the prosecution. The evidence offered was that of two constables, who went together to defendant's rooms. One wae admitted, to the presence of defendant during the "morning, and the other in the afternoon. The evidence of corroboration offered in these cases was not the corroboration required. The two constables arranged to go out and get fortune-tellers to tell their fortunes. He considered that they went out together that way to get the defendant to commit a breach of the act. That, in his opinion, made them both, accomplices in each of the offences committed. Therefore, their evidence was that of accomplices, and he vbuld dismiss the information in both cases. Sub-inspector Hendry intimated that as the li'formations laid against the. other alic^e-J fortune-tellers were on all fours with t)ie£€ he would not proceed with the: ).