APPEAL COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8788, 16 April 1907, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

Per Press Association. Wellington, April 16. The Appeal Court took the case of King v, Jas. Nosworthy. The latter was a herbalist at Wanganui, who was convicted of supplying an instrument for an unlawful purpose. The conviction was appealed against on the ground that there was really no charge against him. The facts were that the constable went to Nosworthy and made a purchase for the purpose of getting a ease against him. It was therefore contended that there was no offence, because there was no one on whom the instrument could bo used, and no intention to use it. It was also contended that there was no intent to commit a crime, J udge Chapman declined to withdraw the case from the jury, and against their conviction prisoner now appealed. Mr Myers appeared for thf Crown and Mr Treadwell for prisoner, The latter argued on the lines indicated above, but abandoned the contention in the evidence that sales were wrongly admitted. Without calling on Mr Myers, the Court held that the word “knowing” in criminal code meant “believing” as decided in the English case Eegina v, Halloran, and consequently it did not matter whether there was a woman in the case or not. The conviction was therefore affirmed.

The Meikle Committee passed a resolution congratulating Meikle on the verdict of “ not guilty,” and regretting that the two first issues were so framed as to render a negative answer inevitable and on the technical grounds it was quite irrelevant to their merits, as the Committee had already pointed out to the Minister of Justice. They complain of the Commissioners refraining from mentioning the points favourable to accused, or unfavourable to accusers, and they contend that this serves to emphasise the strength of Meikle’s case. The Committee also regretted that the Commissioners did not include in their report any reference to the credibility of the witnesses, except on two points unfavourable to Jdeikle. They still contend that the evidence before the Commission points to conspiracy, and condemn the reasoning of the Commissioners as to the moral right to compensation. It was decided to continue a pressing demand for justice.