CO129-535-5 N.I. Brewer- transcript of trial and evidence 1-1-1929 - 31-12-1931 — Page 94

-

- 3-

92

The question which aree at the trial is whether

in issuing this statutory report Mr. Brewer was guilty

of the alleged misdemeanour.

It is not denied that the statutory report

corresponded with the entries appearing in the account

books of the bank.

Mr.Brewer (who conducted his own defence) submitted

that there was no case to go to the jury on the ground that

the transactions appearing in the books were in the language

of accountancy "cash." transactions and could not be other-

wise described in the statutory report. He cited "Spargo's

Case" (8 Ch. App. 407) in which it was decided that any

bona fide set-off between the company and a shareholder

would amount to a "payment in cash". Also "Eyles v. Ellis" (4 Bingham, p.112), where a "transfer" made in the books

of a bank, without notice from the account of "A" to the

account of "B" constituted a payment in cash by "A" to "B",

even though "B" knew nothing of the transaction and the

bank failed the following day. (Another case on this point

is "Larocque v.Beauchemin" (1897) A.C. 358).

Clearly the word "cash" will comprise assets of

an equivalent value included bona fide.

It appeared to me that the material distinction in

the case was not that between one thing of value and

another thing of value, but between substance and shadow. The question of the defendant's bona fides was in issue.

This was one of fact for the jury.

The essential allegation against Mr.Brewer was

that he made the statement of the sum received by the

company in cash knowingly (i.e. understanding what was being

stated), wilfully (1.c. intending to make that statement)

and falsely (i.e. aware that the statement was incorrect

and misleading). These elements constitute the criminal

intent of the offence.

So directed, the jury found a