CO129-535-4 N.I. Brewer- petition for pardon 28-5-1931 - 24-10-1931 — Page 17

(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)