Conviction contra. sec.
4 (6)
of Gold Mining Products
Protection Ordinance Cap. 6/j
(Gold Coast).
P. A. Rellner
(with him /1. (}.
Heward-Mills)
for Appellant.
T.
/1.
lJrown
for Respondent.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, WEBBER,
C.J., SIERRA LEONE,
AND S'l'ROTHER-STEWART, J.
We have carefully considered the
points submitted to us on hehalf
of the appellant by his counsel
and are satisfied that there is
no substance in any of them. But
we are satisfied that the
conviction on the charge of
carrying on the business of a
goldsmith cannot be supported in
addition to the other two
convictions. A goldsmith is
defincld as " a worker or dealer
in gold which is not " a gold
mining product and a seller of
articles manufactured of "gold."
It is not quite clear whether a
man has got to be both " a
worker or dealer" and "a
seller", but if the legislature
intended that it was sufficient
to be either, an amendment
appears to be necessary. In this
case there is no evidence that
appellant was" a seller of
articles manufactured of gold."
But it is not on this ground
alone that the conviction
cannot, in our view, be upheld.
Throughout this case the
prosecution was at pains to
prove that the gold found in
appellant's possession was" a
gold mining product". It did
this by having assayed samples
taken at random. Some of these
samples were proved to be "gold
mining products", some might or
might not be. None was pro"\'ed
affirmatively not to be. 'rhe
Police Magistrate assumed
against the appellant that the
unassayed gold in evidence was
not a gold mining product. ·We
think that that assumption was
not justified. Although it was
the cas.e for the defence that
it was nof a gold mining product
he had just found that defence
to be untrue. To find again in
favour of the prosecution that
it was true was to let the
prosecution have it both ways.
To put it in another way the
convictions are mutually
inconsistent.
For these reasons we are of
opinion that the conviction and
sentence for carrying on a
business of a goldsmith without
a licence contrary to section 4
(6) of the Ordinance cannot be
upheld, and they are accordingly
annulled. The convictions and
sentences upon the other charges
are sustained.
35,·
Appeal Court. 29 Nov.
1935.
Appeal from Sup~eme Court
exercising appellate
jurisdiction.
