Rex v Keller & Parker

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Rex Respondent v Keller & Parker Applicants
1915 AD 98

1915 AD p98

Citation	1915 AD 98
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Innes CJ, Solomon JA and De Villiers AJA
Heard	February 1, 1915
Judgment	February 1, 1915

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Appeal — Special leave — Criminal Law — Evidence.

Headnote : Kopnota

The accused were convicted of the crime of theft by means of false pretences in selling pieces of glass as diamonds. Evidence was admitted of their having on a previous occasion endeavoured to sell glass as diamonds. Held, that such evidence was rightly admitted, as it was relevant on the question of guilty knowledge, and that leave to appeal must be refused.

Case Information

Application for special leave to appeal from a conviction before SEARLE, J., and a jury.

The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment.

The appellants in person.

C. C. Jarvis, for the Crown, was not called upon.

Judgment

Innes, C.J.:

The applicants were convicted by a jury at Cape Town of the crime of theft by means of false pretences, in having sold to one Mitchell for the sum of £350 certain pieces of glass as being diamonds, well knowing that they were not. During the progress of the trial an order was made that all witnesses should leave the Court. One Parvades, who had not been subpoenaed, came into court after the order and remained there. After he had heard some of the evidence he volunteered a statement and was subsequently called by the Crown. The jury having returned a verdict of guilty, application was made to the presiding Judge that certain questions connected with the testimony of Parvades should be reserved, and a special entry was directed to be made in terms of the statute. The questions reserved were two: (1) Whether the evidence of Parvades should have been excluded because of his presence in court despite the order; and (2) Whether apart from that his evidence was not irrelevant as bearing upon an offence with which the accused were not charged.

Both points were argued in due course before the Cape Provincial Division and were decided adversely to the accused. And they now desire special leave to appeal to this Court. If such leave were granted the appeal would necessarily be confined to the two questions reserved; and if the replies given to them by the

1915 AD p99

Innes, C.J.

Provincial Division are in no degree subject to doubt, it would be useless and undesirable...