(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
17
was wrong.
I agree with Mr. Shenton that the conviction
A Court of Criminal Appeal would, I think,
upset the conviction on 2 grounds;-
(a) misdirection by the Judge,
(b) a finding of the Jury which was not justified by
the aridence.
As to misdirection, I think the Judge was
wrong in leaving the Jury to decide the meaning of
"payment in cash".
The construction of a Statute is for the Judge: vide
Note A infra.
The Judge should have told the Jury that they must
accept the construction of the expression from him,
and that the expression must be construed as follows:-
3hares are paid for in cash when, as between the
Company and the allottee,
(1) there are cross money payments presently
enforceable,
(2) the two demands are set off against each other
(3) the transactions are bona fide.
He should have left the Jury to find, on this point,
only the following feets
(a) whether the facts necessary to constitute the
alleged cross money payments presently enforceable,
did exist,
(b) whether the demands were set off against each other
(c) whether the transactions were bona fide
He should further have directed them that if
they found against either (a), or (b), or (a), the
transactions were not for cash, and the statement in
the Report was false; and that they must then find
(a)