S v Bell

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Caney J and Miller J
• Judgment Date: 21 September 1962
• Hearing Date: 07 September 1962
• Court: Natal Provincial Division

Miller, J.:

The appellant, who is a teacher in the Department of Bantu Education, was charged in the magistrate's court at Richmond with the crimes of forgery and uttering. He pleaded not guilty, but was nevertheless convicted of both offences which were treated as one for purposes of sentence. The magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine

Miller J

of R200 or to undergo 100 days' imprisonment, but R150 or 75 days' imprisonment were suspended for 12 months 'on condition accused does not commit an offence involving dishonesty during that period'.

The charge of forgery was in the following terms:

A 'In that upon or about the 2nd day of March, 1961 at or near Richmond, in the district of Richmond, the said accused did wrongfully and unlawfully, with intent thereby to defraud and to the prejudice, actual or potential, of one Infried Bartels, owner of the farm Seafield in the district of Richmond, forge a certain instrument in writing, to wit, a letter 2nd March, 1961, purporting to be signed by E. Bartels addressed to the editor of the Farmer's Weekly, registered as a newspaper, B requesting the said editor of the said Farmer's Weekly to cause to be published in the said Farmer's Weekly an advertisement to the effect following -

'Richmond, Natal, Seafield, approximately 800 acres of timber, all stages, wattle and gum. Liberal quota N.T.E. and Hodgsons. Single storey B & I. Dwelling, 5 rooms, K.P.B. H and C., E.S.C. £6,000; 75 per cent bond at 4 per cent. No agents. Real snip for quick sale. Will consider terms. For personal reasons, owner anxious to leave district. Write, call or phone, E. Bartels, Richmond, 2230.'

C which said advertisment was in fact, published in the said Farmer's Weekly on the 15th March, 1961.'

It was common cause that the advertisement quoted in the charge was published in the Farmer's Weekly at the instance of the appellant who wrote the letter dated 2nd March, 1961, to the editor of the Farmer's D Weekly and signed the name of the complainant Bartels. It was also common cause that he had no authority from Bartels to sign the letter or to have the advertisement published but that he made no attempt to copy or imitate the signature of Bartels.

It appears from the evidence that the appellant and the complainant, who E had been on reasonable terms with one another, found themselves in opposing camps in regard to the national referendum which was to be held on the question whether a Republic should be proclaimed. The appellant on his own showing was contemptuous or scornful of the complainant's pro-republican activities and after the referendum had been concluded to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and obviously to the acute F disappointment of the appellant, the latter ceased to greet the triumphant complainant and wrote the letter which is the subject of this charge. In his evidence at the trial the appellant said that he had written the letter as a joke, 'admittedly in bad taste'. He said that he did not contemplate any prejudice to the complainant or to any other G person and was most surprised that the advertisement was taken seriously. He admitted in cross-examination, however, that this 'practical joke' which he had played on the complainant had a political intention and that it had 'a little bit of sting in the tail' though he disavowed any malice on his part. It appears from the evidence of the H complainant that he had six enquiries from prospective purchasers who read the advertisement. The complainant consulted his attorneys and instructed them to withdraw the advertisement and also to communicate with the holder of the mortgage bond over his farm presumably to advise him of the true position and that complainant did not in fact intend to sell his farm for the ridiculously low price stated in the advertisement, or at all. He also complained that he had been made a...