CASE BREAKS DOWN

Wairarapa Times-Age, 16 October 1940, Page 8

CASE BREAKS DOWN

ALLEGED THEFT IN FAILURE TO ACCOUNT TRANSACTION IN SHARES. ACQUITTAL BY JUDGE'S DIRECTION. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH. October 15. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury in the case against Donald Ottrey Austin Knight, salesman, in the Supreme Court. Knight was charged with theft in failing to account for moneys received from the sale of shares in Lange's Mobile Gas Producer, Limited. The verdict was returned at the direction of Mr Justice Northcroft after Robert Stewart Lange had admitted, when coss-examined, that Knight was entitled to sell shares transferred to him by Lange. The case for the defence was not called. The charges against Knight were that he committed theft in failing to account for moneys received for shares on terms ’requiring, him to account for them to Lange's Mobile Gas Producer, Limited. They concerned £6O obtainfrom Arthur Shaw on Decembe 7, 1939, and £4O on January 15. £lO from James Mayo, Ouruhia, on December 8, and £5O from Richard William Gill, Blenheim, on December 13. Questioned by Mr C. S. Thomas, counsel for Knight, about the transfer of 400 shares by him to Knight, Lange, managing director of Lange's Mobile Gas, Ltd., Christchurch, said that on his part no “trickery” was intended. His Honour: "You knew the document was not genuine?" Lange: “As far as I was concerned it was genuine. It was so that he would be entitled to sell.” His Honour: “Entitled to sell?”

Lange: "I didn’t really mean that.” His Honour: “The transactions meant either that Knight was buying shares he paid? for in the future and that he was entitled to sell, or it was a trick. You say it wasn't a trick?" Lange: “That's so.” His Honour then- said he could not take the case any further and counsel agreed that he should address the jury. "“The case has taken an unusual turn," said his Honour to the jury. “Witness had''to acknowledge either that the transfer of 400 of his shares to Knight was a trick or humbug to mislead prospective investors or that it was a genuine transfer to Knight to be paid for later. The Crown set out to prove that Knight had no shares of his own to sell, only the company's shares, which he had to account for. If, in addition, he was the owner of shares to sell he could do what he liked with the money he received, though morally and legally he would have to pay Lange for the share transferred to him. It appears that the Crown cannot take the case further and that dishonesty has not been proved. You can take it as a direction from me that there is no evidence to justify you in finding him guilty.” Without retiring the jury found Knight not guilty.