Given v CV Holland (Holdings) Pty Ltd

[1977] FCA 33

. 2.

i h - . Thomas said rh-t he hac! no t prev lous ly purchaed

a car from the defendmt but he hod purchascd tine one he then

owned from a man who had become an mployee of t h e dcfendont.

He sa id tha t he spoke t o tilat employee on the telephone and

ar ranged to meet him a t the car yard . Nr. Thomas s a l d t h a t he

went t o the car yzrd on 18 2ecernber 1974. After a conversat lon

about t r le possibi l i ty of an N . R . N . A . mspectlon, the enployee

sa id : "1 don' t th ink it i s necessary. For .$25.00 they don ' t

do much anyway and t h e car seems okay. I' Nr. Thomas sala t h a t

he took the Holden f o r a t e s t d r i v e , and ther. arranged with tho

d e f e n d a n t t o t r a d e i n t n e c a r h e t h e n owned, and a hire purchase

t r ansac t ion was arranged f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n p r l c e . Tne

defendant was	described	i n the h i re purchase agreemnt	as	a
I1Dealer".

On 27 January 1975, vh l s t it v z s being Griven, the re27

wheel and axle came of f a d -me c2r k ~ . d CO be towet to

Mr. Thomas' t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l , home. On 31 January 1975 t r m b l e 2eveloped i n

and again the cm h2d t o be toved t o

Y r . Thomas' home.

Mr. Thomas s a i d t ha t he no t i ced tha t t he f ron t s ea t s ' z r ' e

covered wi th p las t ic sea t covers and .when he remved t h e s e n e

observed thzt the seats were f rayrd . ;h-. Thonas arranceci t o

dr ive the car to the defendant ' s p remises where it was i:lspcctsci

by a mechanic employed by the d e f m d c n t . Mr. Thomas sai t i 'ha;. h2

made soxe enquiries from an eniployce of ulc previou; o c m r o f

the car about the number of niCles t h e c m had trnvclLed, m ? .

t h e r e a f t e r Mr. Thomas had. 6 conversation viLa W . QuiELey, t h e

Maneging Direc tor cjf the dc fcn tac t c o q x n y , abcu-; t h k nuxher of

miles tile car hsd travelled.

3.

Mr. Thomas sa ld tha t he showed Kr. (?Uli;ley S o I w d o c u x n t s

t h a t he had obtamed from the prevlous owner of t h e c a r arid

Mr. Quigley sald he would look i n to the mz t t e r . l i b . l’homes sa id

t h a t he and Mr. Quig ley su tseqcent ly had a conve r sa t ion in ::.h:lch

VD. Quiglcy said: “The speedometer had been taken out and

another one put back i n its place.” .L:enior C o m s e l f o r the

Informant alleged in openlng that the defcndazlt had turned the

odoneter back sone 45,000 mlles . In h i s f ina l addres s Sen io r

Counsel for the defendant inv i ted me t o a c c q t t h e corment

Yr. Thomas s a i d t h a t Mr. Quigley had nede t o h l m as an e x p l a a t l o n

of what took place. Mr. Thomas also sald t h a t e f t e r h j s second

conversation with Dlr. Qu ig ley , t he veh lc l e aga in s toppd on t n e

had thereaf ter cozplained t o be towed t o Xr. Thomas ’ h m e . 14r. Thomas

road and

t o t h e Consucer L f f a l r s a d the ‘trade

P r a c t i c e s a u t h o r i t i e s .

Mrs. Thomas, the wife o f Fr . Thornas, s a d I n evLdcnce,

4

t h a t , when she inspected the c n r before Chris txas :S?+ 111 t h e

defendant’s used car yard, the odoncter sho:;ec abous 23,C?@9 rnlle,s.

The Holden which IGr. Thomas acquired fro-n the defendant

had been s e n i o r s a l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r t h a t owned previas ly by a com2anjr. Pk; Eirch, W!~O had been

company, ga-Je evidence t h a t

it had acqui red the car new i n Ju ly 1372, and t h a t he had 5ecn

t h e r egu lz r d r l v e r of it u n t i l October 137L, vhen it was t raded

In. Mr. mechaqical defect Birch sa id t h a t the ndomlezer h d not ex:-iS:t.eC ay

wh i l s t he had been cirl-qmz the CZT, and si.w;;ecl

69,012 niilec when t h e c a r was t radcd i:). 3ir. Bircn :..?.5c, s o l d

t h a t h e hed in spec ted the c a r a t th:? dcfrndanr 1s pxlni:es, after.

it had been traded in, and t!,e o?oxcter thcn recrrricd abut

23,003 o r %/t,OO@ miles. T m :;:ttisf?.cL thkit !<her: tracted i n t n c

odomeker recorded 69,012 mjlcs r u ~ i t h t l t t h c VC;: c i c h;:d

t r a v e l l e d approximately t11zz di:,tarlc C’S.

4 .

An attempt was made by t h e m l o r a a n t t o introduce

evidence i n r e . a t i o n t o odometcr r?odlngs on two o ther vehic les .

It was argued for the informant thak t h l s evldenze was re levant

upon the p r inc ip l c s tha t apply t o 1.i~ admissmn of similar f a c t s .

Proceedlngs under s.79 are crmixlal proceedlnzs and, I cons lder ,

t ha t bc fo re a defmaant can be convicted, thc informant must

prove each ingredient of the offence charged beyond reasonable

doubt , accord ing to ru les which apply in any other cr11mnal

charge. I admi t t ed ce r t e in ev ldence d i r sc t s2 to e s t ab l i sh lng

similar f a c t s b u t I reJeCted other evidence and m the evldence

admitted, I cons ide r t ha t no s i i n i l a r f a c t s were es tab l i shed

against the defendant .

I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e m l l e z g e a p a r t i c u l a r C E has ~

t rave l led can fa i r l j r be descr ibed 2s a p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t y o f

tha t car . Senior Counsel for "Lie defendmt referr::d ne t o i!

number of c a s e s , p a r t l c u l a r i y t h a s e dealing v l t h t h e exprecr,:or:

':rnerchultable qua l i ty" , bu t I do no t cons ide r t ha t zny cjf t::f,se

a r e of' s i g n i f i c m t h e l p i n d e t e r m i n i n g The meaning of t h e worc!

ltqualitytl in s.53(a), because they are concerned wiTh the meclin;

of t h e word f lqual i tyl l in the phrase l lmerci lanrakle quai i tyI1. I

have a l so g lven cons ide ra t ion to a number of the ca,ses dsaling

wi th t h e words l!...a word not havmg d i rec t re ference t o -,he

charac te r o r q u a l i t y of t h e goods . . . l t appca rmg in s.2b(l)(lj

of t h e Tra6e i4arks Act 19.55-1973, 3r.d to the correspcnLing wardz

i n S. 16( 1) (d ) of the 1905-1948 Tracic :+!arks ACT, ar.d t o t h e b or?.;;

i n the correspond+-ng sectiox o f the corresDonaing %~lish AC';.

These cazes do n s t a f ford a ~ l y s i g n i f l c m t a s s l s t m c e , b e c x a e

of the combination of the word tlq?.'aii-t;jrfs w i t h t h e w w d s

l'cila-ac (.er or1! .

The read i n the i r con tex t . words '!of a p a r t i c u l a r q u r . l l t v t l i n s.53(a) h m c m bc

1 d~ i i o t consider it is p3ss i l~ l e t a

3 C:. 9 4. , ' l1 - l . ' + . , - I I > T a , - 4 . - +v,>+ - < m $ 1 p - l pnytp-r+ T t y

5 .

meaning must be a s c e r t a i n e d i n r e l a t l o n I;o t h e goods whose

q u a l i t y i s bemg considered, and t h l s i s p a r t l c u l a r l y c l e m

when one l o o k s a t t h e d c f l n i t l o n o f goods I n s.4 of the Act

where goods a re de f lncd , un le s s t he con t r a ry in t cn t lon appea r s ,

as including:-

" ( a ) S h i p s , a j r c r e f t and o ther v h ic les ;

an imals , (b) inc luding f i sh ;

(C) minerals, Trees and crops, whether on , under

or a t tached to land o r no t ; and

( a gas and e! e c t r l c i t y ; It

This case is concerned wlth a p a r t l c u l a r qua l l t>- of a

motor vehicle. The Shor te r Oxford D x t i o c a r y g i v e s 75e

fo l lowing meanings amongs t o thers , for qua l l ty in re la t ion	t	o
th ings : -

I t h e t t r i b c t e , p r o p e r t y , s p e c i a l f e a t u r e . Tile ntituro, klnd c r

charac te r (of something).lI

I n my opin ion the nu1bc-r of m l e s a p a r t i c u l a r vc i l c l e

has t rave l led descr lbes a p a r t l c u l a r a t t r L b u t e , 3r a s!>e.ciai

fea ture of t h a t vehic le , and therefore descr lbes a p a t l c u l a r

qua l l t y o f t ha t veh lc l e .

I pass now t o conslder whether the readme on the @dc:~te:*

of a used notor vehicle i s a. representa t ion o f t h e miles t i l5t

vehic le has t rave l led when tha t vef i ic le i s display2d by a aeaic-r

i n its used c a r yard. It was made c l e a r by Senior Cour,sel i3r

the i n f o r n a n t t h a t no verbal. r e s r e s c c t e c i m , ar r cp reau l t a t lon

of any k m d o ther than the mer6 a.rJyt?ar?nze of tm fi{;ure?s 011 tcc

odoneter was alleged. There w x no suegcctl-cn t h a t any c i i l c c r

of t h e coTpany hagd drawn the a t t c .n t im of m y C ~ C T O ~ P : -CO the

odometer reading. Eowevcr, th? dr-:cndmt had taker1 rirt- step c€

plac ing thc car on display 1.01- s s k I n .iTs used c?.? yard m r l t t :?

OdciarTer rezdmg wac t h c r c .;or prossac t ive ~ILIT : ! , : . -~ . J~~ TCI C ~ ~ S L ~ T V : .

6.

1 do not conslder t ha t any statcincnt o r a s s e r t i o n by a servant

or agcnt of t h e company, wlth an in t en t lon t o convc'p inforinatlon

t o a prospective purchaser 1s nccesso ry in th i s ca se . I

cons lde r t ha t t he s t ep of p lac lng the car o n d l s p l a y f o r s a l e

w i t h a mileage shwm on the odorneter i n a used car dea le r ' s yard ,

where the vehic le i s p l aced wi tn the in t en t lon tha t It will be

inspected by prospect ive purchasers i s , in the absence of any

special circumstances, a represcnta t lon by the used car deal.cr

t h a t t h e c a r has t r a v e l l e d t h e n m b e r of miles shown on t h e

odometer. I n H. v Hamnrrtons Cers Ltd . 19'76 1 W.L.K. 1243, t h e

Court of Appeal considered s.l(l)(b) of t h e IJnlted Klngdon

Trade Descriptions Act 1953. That sect ion circds a d i s t i n c t i o n

between a person who in the course of t rade o r l juslness (a)

appl ies a f a l s e t r a d e d e s c r i p t i o n t o any goods and (t;) suppl ies

o r offers to supply any goods t o whlch a f a l s e t r a d e d e s s r l p % i o n

is cpplied. I consider s.53(a) of t h e A c t does not. d r e w any

such d is t inc t ion . In t h e les t nentioned case the Court was

considering whether a f z l s e odometer o r rni lem9ter rzasing was

a f a l s e t r a d e d e s c r i p t i o n and a t 1246 said "....m mast chzes

of the kind now before the Cour t the mi leoneter reac i iq 1s o n

t he no to r car for the prospect ive purchzser t o see a r d t3 tAte iR*?

cons idera t ion when deciding t o buy." As t o s.l(l)(a) and ('3)

of the Trade Descr lpt ions Act see genera l ly C p t t e e v .E. Seatc?] l;':?.

1972 1 Y.L.R. 1408 2 t 1414-141-8.

The t r a v s l l e d 169,GOO rnlles, defendant a lso m p e a t c z t i f t h e Holdon vc!licle hzd

t h e odanetc.; xould have ShCJlm t 3 a t it

had t r a v e l l e d only 69,C03 miles s ince a f t e r 99,999 Icijcs the

odometer automatlcally retu1-r.s t o 0. However rile c o r r e c t

r e a d ~ n g on the odoseter vhen th? vehic le was purckased m s p b o x

69,012 and s o t h e readmg of 23,70'7 wzs not cor~nect, whzthw t h e

vehic le had t r a v c l l c d 69,312 miles o r J.G9,012 xj.1e.s.

The llext matter to cons ldc r i s whether the vords

Itfalsely represent" i n s . 5 3 i a ) o f t h e k t a r e s a t l s f i e d

if the representa t ion is no t co r rec t , o r whet'ner it must be

known t o be f a l s e by the person miking the representa t ion .

It was also argued €or the dc€endant , that , s ince it W2S a

corporat ion, the representat lon must be one f a l s e t o t h e knowledGC

of a person of sa f f ic len t sen ior i ty in t h e ccnpany t o be ab le to

bind	the	coapany.
I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t , i f a representa t ion i s i n f n c t n o t

co r rec t , it comes withir. the v o r d s of the sec t ion , even i f It

I s n o t f a l s e t o t h e knowledge of the person xakisg tine

representa t ion , and even i f the person %klng, the representat ion

is a servant of the conpany of i n s u f f i c i e n t s i @ i f i c m c e i n

t h e company pr inc ip les of the f o r h i s knowledge, according t o t k e o r d i n a r y

Common Law, t o be Ceened t o be t h e ;tno;5rle6gc?

of t h e company.

There i s nothing novel i n equating Ilfalsell with Ilcont:'u-p

t o f a c t " . For exanple , s .234(d) of the Custons ACT r c w i d e s

t h a t no person shall make any en t ry which is f a l s e i:l any

p a r t i c u l a r . The sect ion provide6 a penal ty of two huz5reE d o l i e r z .

The HiEh Court considered the sezt ion in S tFmbe?*s _- v . ??-e

Queen 93 C.L.K. 646 and i n D Z V I ~ ~ G E v . ;:etsm 2.3 A.L.J. 6 3 , arxl

held t'nat "false" there Rearit r lcanzrary to f a rx . Ir. t h e l r t t o r

ca5e the

Court o b j e c t i v e l y f a i s c I n said a t 04: "For c k p r l y , i f t h e e n t ~ y is

a pa r t i cu la r the offence is cov i i t t ed m d

Eui l tv knowledge o r be l i e f forms no l q r e d i e n t In tce offence. ' l

I am s a t l s f i e d t h a t the odom-wr rcnGjll6 war, I n f a c t no7;

c o r r e c t , and t h o t t h e d i r p l q ,>C that. re?ding 111 the

ciri:amstances i n which it was G:splayd, cccstltsted a f a l s e

repressnLtt lc1: that the - m n c l e v;:ns c; a p a r t i c u l a r qxht;'.

I provides cer ta in defcnces, pass now t o c o n s i d e r s.65 of t h e Act. This section

s.ej(l) and ( 2 ) read as fo1iavu:-

"(l) SubJcct to sub-section (2 ) , i n a prosecution under t h i s

P a r t i n r e l a t i o n t o a contravcn+,ion of a provls ion of Par t V ,

it i s a defence i f the defendant es tnbl ishes-

(a) t h a t t h e c o n t r w c n t i o n m respec t of which the p roceedme

was i n s t i t u t e d was due t o a mis take , to re l iance on

information sup7lied by another person, t o t n e a c t o r

defaul t of anothcr $erson, to an acc idcnt o r t o some o ther

cause beyond h i s c o n t r o l ; and

(b ) t h a t he took reasonable prccautions ar.d exercised due

d i l igence t o avoid the conzraventlon.

(2 ) If a defence provided by sub-section (1) involves an

z l l e g a t i o n t h a t a contravent ion was due t o r e l k n c e on

information sugplied by ano ihe r pe r son o r t o the ac t o r d e f w l t

of another person, the ckfendact 1s n o t , ;;ithout lcaire of t h e

Court , e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on -cht defencs u l e s s he has, not

l a t e r than seven d a y s before the day on which t h e h?ari:!S c f

the proceeding ccmnences, served on the person by vhorr? ?he

proceedmg was i n s t i t u t e d a not ice 1x1 wri t ing giving such

information t h a t would i d e n t l f y o r a s s i s t i n t n e i d e n t i f i c a k i u n

of the other person as was then i n h i s possessicn.I:

The defendznt argued thnt mens r e a was a necassa-.;

ingredient which the in fo rzan t had t o e s t a b l l s h a-ld tr.is

argument -XTS p c t cn a n u h r gf grmnds . In xy o p i u m , it is

v e r y s i g c l f i c e n t t h a t i t is no t a a c f e r x e t o e s t a b l j s h t h a t a

contravent icn of S. 53(a) %:ss duo t o a olls take, o r t o :,elic+nce

on information suppli.e3 by nmx!.m- person, o r t:, t h e a c t OY

default of another person, G? L D m acc ldoc t o r t o s o m o l h r r

cause beymd f o r thc dzfcnchnt the cc?ntrJl sf t l l P dciendsnt. I t is also ncJce:;sc::ry

to entnbl ic :7 L ~ J L ~ he tc~o!: rcasonztj3e

precaut ions and e x e x . ~ s c d cla: c z l i ~ . c r ) v t~ :~vc*l2 thc cant] :I-.

9.

vention. Section Wt(2) provldJs : llfmy conduct cnzaged I n on

behalf of a body corporate by a d i reckor , agent or se rvant of

t h e body corpora te or by any other person a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o r

wlth the consent o r agreement (whethor express or implied) of

a d i rec tor , agent o r se rvant of t h e body corporate shall be

deened, for the purpozes of t h i s Act, t o hzve byer. engaged i n

a lso by the body corporate .

Sect ion l+ def ines Ilengage i n conductt1, unless the con:;rxy

in ten t ion appears , as including: lido, r e f u s e t o do , o r r e f r a i n

from doing, any act , incluelng thz meking cf a cont rac t o r

arrangemenr: or the en ter ing inzo an mderstznd?n::,and 'cngaglng 1r.

conduct' has a corresponding meaning. 'I Sectlcr: 3 4 < 2 ) was

considered. in i3al lard v Smrrv-Rand - 6 A.L.R. 656. 1r1 a j o i n t

judgment Spicer C . J . , Dunphy and. S t . JOLT JJ., sald a t 705 t h a t

t h e c r i m i n a l r e s p o n s l b i l i t y of a corporation under t'nc- Trade

Pract ices Act , is, by v i r t u e OS s .0&(2 ) , extended t o i:lciidc

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e a c t s cf a servant . ;t i s t o be noted

t h a t t i e word s e r v m t i n s.84 (2 ) is n o t l i m t e d t o a 1 1 y

par t icu lar grade of se rvant , and , in Dx- t icu lar , it i s ;lot

limited. t o those se rvan t s whose s t a t u s and authsrit:; a t S C X X i i

law would make t h e i r a c t s , i n t h e n a t t e r under consideration,

t h e a c t s of the company whose servants they were.

My &.tention was d r a m t o 2 cmber of cases deel inz with

mens r e a m 3 t h e d e f e n d a n t r e l i e d q o n t h e s e as e s t ac l i sh lng

t h a t t h e r e is a p r e s m p t ~ o n t:?nt mens rea , o r knobledre o f The

wongfulnecs cf t h e a c t , i s XI esscnt la l inperhF;n? . 3f evwy

offence. knongst other cases , it Fel led m ----- Lrrl: Chin -.--- k1k v.

The Queen, 1963 R . C . 3.60. kio&cver, i n t h a t case + ,h~ J':-ivy

Cou?cll proceeded [-;on t h e bas ic that t h e app l i za t l cn of t h e

r u l e t h a t mcns rca i:: m c:,:,cncip2 icgrcdlen t 1t1 ever)' O ~ ~ C - I I C ~

i s l i a b l e t o se disp laced c i t r ~ e r Ly t h e words of %he p ~ - i - , ~ c c i ? : *

s t a t u t e creating the o f fcncc , or h; tt,e s'lb.jccL r,c?tft?:- S-: ' . , b.,

10.

the judgment of t h e House of Lords 111 Te'esco S1:~vrrnarkcts L t d .

v. rJnttr.ar,s 1972 A . C . 153 1 s particularly help€u?. In t n i s

case the House o f Lords wes cons leer ing a prosecut ion based on

the p rov i s lons of s.ll(2) and a defence based on t h e provlslons

of s . 2 4 ( 1 ) of the United Kirlgdom Trade DescTlptlons Act 1963,

A very important issue was whether the offence created by

s.ll(2) was one of s t r i c t liability o r wilethe!- 'mens r e a ' was a

necessary Ingredient .

S.ll(2) Frol:ided:l'If any person offer ing t a .wpply any goods

g ives , by whatever melns, any m d x s t i o n

likely t o be t a k e n as an indlcatLon t!?at

t h e goods a re be ing o f fe rcd a t a p r i ce Less

t h a n t h a t a t which they are i n f a c t i r e l n ~

offered he s h a l i , s u b j e c t t o t h e provis lons

of t h i s Act, be g u i l t y of m ofi'e?cs."

5.24(1) prov1dcd:"In any proceedings for m cffer.cz m6er t%ls

Act it s h a l i , subject to su 'os?ct ion (2) of

t h i s s ec t lon , be a dc-*,?ncc fo r t he pe r son

charged t o Frove-(a) t h a t t h e com.nlzsion of

the of fence was due t o a mistake clr t o

r e l i s n c e on infornat lon suppl ied t o h i q 3r

t o t h e a c t o r d e i a d t of ar,ot!ler ~ers011, X

acc ident o r some other ceuce 'ceyw-d his c ~ ) . n t r d ~ ;

and (t) t h z t he rook a i l reassnab1.e p r e c z u t l x ? s

and e x e r c i s s d a l i d l x d111genre to avoid -;he

11.

t h a t , SubJCCt to the anfences provided In the Act , s.11(2)

created an offence of s t r l c t l l n b i l l t y . i n considering t h e

quest ion of mens. rea in proceedings under the Austral ian

legislation the ex is tence of ss.84 and 85 is very important.

Notwithstandjng the extraordinar i ly hcavy burden which

ss. 53(a) and 3 4 ( 2 ) appear to p lace upon corporat ions and t h e

magnitude of the peca1.t~ provlded by s.79 of tne Act, 1 m

s a t l s f i e d t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e inter:dcd t o d l sp l ace the

p re suap t ion tha t lcens r e a was a necessary ingredient i n r e l a t i o n

t o m of fence a r i s inz	from a	con t rwen t ion 3f	the provlsionr,	of
s.53(a).

A t t he c iose of the infomant ’s case Senior Counse l f o r

The defendant sought to argue that , there was no cebe t o answer.

Senior Counsel for the informmt raised EO oSJection ami saxi

t h a t , 8 s a metter of practice, the Comonwealth took ths vi?w

t h a t a defendant mignt argue t!?at, t h z e vas co case t 3 answer

wi thout be ing obl iged to e lec t t.hctl-.er o r n o t t o c a l i r v i d e x e .

I a l lo , .~ed th i s course to be fol101:ed a 6 a f t e r h e a r i n g suba!.:sion:;

I held that t h e r e was evidence upon wnich t h e d e f e n d a c t c o u ~ l

lawful ly Le convicted; and that t h e r e wds a case t c arxwer. The

d e f e n d a t t h e n e i e c t e d t o c a l l no evidence and af te r . ful’thEj-

submissions I reserved my Judgment on the ques t lon of whether

the dcfenaant was gu i l ty . (See generally N:ev v. OtPLmll ivm --

92 C.L.A. 5 5 4 ) .

The defendant chose r,ot t o go ln t s ev idence , h& t b l s >.S

a r i g h t any dcfendant has i n a c r m x z l c a s e , and 632s not

a l t c r t h e onus which th? ll?fornlz.nt c3rrles. X@ne of thn rnattms

mentioned i n S .a5 (l)(z)or( t)) !lam been es tab l i shed .

On the view 1 take o f s .5 j (a ) i t is not neccssarjr t:, r ,~.ke

any flndin;: on how t!x chang? i g t h e obor;,e-tcr r ex ix lg C ~ 3 b o ~ ~ P

. .

IL.

ana, indeed, cn the evldcnce before r e I would not be prcparcd

t o makc a f ind ing tha t t h e odometcr was wound back by t h e

defendant.

I am s a t i s f l e d t h z t t he ln fo rmmt has proved a l l t h e

ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore

X convict the defendant.

Both Sertlcr Ccunsel Joined in a sk ing !m t o d e f e r t he

considcr2t lon of pcna i ty , cos t s m u any consequent la i orders

wtil a f t e r I had deLivercd jLd&?cnt ox: whether o r no t T w111d

convict the defcnda7t znd I agreed t o do so.

?