"RECENT POSSESSION."
A LEGAL QUESTION. (Per Press Association.) OHIUSTCHUKUII, Jun. 11. The question of what' constitutes "recent possession" in th« eye of the law came tip during the hearing of a case in which a nuui was churgvd with stealing u gold watch some J8 months ugn. The accused lutely ottered tho watch to a pawnbroker, hence the proceedings. His counsel contended that the fact that accused was found with thy watch two years after il was stolen could not lie held to be "recent possession" within the meaning of tho code. Tho detective replied that il was a well-known fact that expert thiev- , es did not go to u pawnbroker for some time after a robl>ory. It was absuixl to suppose they would. As lo two years not being within the definition of recent possession, the lieiich could not Know that there had often been cases where thieves had hidden stolen goods for years, and then afterwards been convicted. Counsel : That is not so. 1 stake my professional reputation that, there has never l>eeii a case where ' two years has been held to be "re- ■ cent possession." The Hench decided to let the Supreme Court settle the question.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19050118.2.16
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7715, 18 January 1905, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
199"RECENT POSSESSION." Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7715, 18 January 1905, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in