Edmund Gottfried Appea V. The King (1951)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Power of Appellate Court to examine disputed document in forgery case—Appropriation of specific sum negatives general deficiency—Nature of controlover factor may establish he is a clerk or servant—Falsification of accounts—Omission to make entry—Effect of acquittal on certain counts and convictionon others.

Facts

The appellant was convicted on one count of forgery, on two counts of stealing, and on one count of falsification of accounts. He was acquitted on other counts of falsification and stealing.

The facts are sufficiently set out in the judgment. Counsel for the appellant argued :—

1. that the charge of forgery was not proved because there was no evidence to prove that the appellant had written any part of the forged document ;
2. that the first count of theft only disclosed a general deficiency ;
3. that it was not proved that the appellant was a clerk or servant, or that he had omitted to make an entry in the books. The appellant was a factor; the omission was the fault and responsibility of a book-keeper to whom the books had been given in charge;
4. that appellant having been acquitted on two counts of stealing he could not be convicted on two other counts of offences of a similar nature.

Held

The Court of Appeal can itself examine documents in cases of disputed handwriting and form its own conclusions.

The appellant had to account for the balance of a specific sum advanced to a customer and he cannot, therefore, be heard to say _there was only a general deficiency.

The appellant received a salary for whole-time employment, and was bound to obey the instructions of the society for which he worked which exercised such control over him as to establish that he was a clerk or servant.

The appellant had as much to do with the keeping of the cash book at the material time as the book-keeper engaged to assist him, and that he intentionally omitted to make an entry, or to request the book keeper to make an entry, with intent to defraud.

A verdict on one count is entirely independent of a verdict on another count. Where two counts are tried together the position is the same as if two juries were trying two indictments. Each count is a separate indictment.

All the convictions were upheld.

Appeal dismissed.