Criminal law-Offence of Cheating
under section 421 of the
Criminal Code.
The facts established an offence
of false pretences contra.
section 419 of the Criminal
Code: it was contended for the
Crown that they also constitute
an offence under section 421
(Cheating) but it was held that
as there was no evidence that
the gilding was done
by appellant or for the purpose
of the fraud, the conviction
under that section could not
stand.
Appellant in person.
Unsworth
for Crown.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
BUTLER LLOYD, ACTING C.J.,
NIGERIA, BROOK AND ,JEFFREYS, JJ.
In this case the appellant was
charged with the offence of
cheating contra. section 421 of
the Criminal Code. The
particulars being that he did on
the 5th May, 1941, fraudulently
obtain the sum of £3 from one
Vietoria Peter. It was
established by the evidence for
the prosecution that appellant
called on the complainant, told
her a hard luck story, and
induced her to lend him £3 on
the security of some trinkets he
showed her and which he said
were all gold and worth £6.
These trinkets were subsequently
found to be brass gilded over.
It is abundantly clear that on
these facts appellant might
properly have been convicted of
an offence against section
419 (false pretences) but
counsel for the Crown has argued
that they also constitute an
offence against section 421, and
suggested that the gilding of
the trinkets, although not
specified in the particulars,
was such a trick as to bring the
case within this section. We are
unable to agree with this. There
was no evidence that the gilding
was done by appellant or by his
orders or for the purpose of
this fraud. We are accordingly
constrained to hold that in the
absence of such evidence the
conviction under section
42f1cannot stand and that the
appeal must be allowed. We have
come to this conclusion
reluctantly because it is clear
that appellant perpetrated a
heartless fraud for which he
thoroughly deserved punishment.
