February 29.
( 828 )
accused said that he bought, the bicycle eight months ago from aman whom he called Pedrik Dance, but who, I think, had noexistence. The possession, therefore, began about the date of thetheft, as is proved by Pedrik Jansz, who is possibly the PedrikDance put forward by the second accused as the seller, and whosaid that he knew that the latter had had the bicycle six orseven months, but denied having sold it to him.
For some reason, which I do not understand, the accused werenot charged with dishonestly receiving but with dishonestlyretaining the bicycle, knowing or having reason to believe that itwas stolen, and the Magistrate curiously observes that recentpossession could not be proved. He also says—what I cannotagree with—that “ as both say it was bought, I am willing tobelieve that they did pay money for it. ” Then he adds that theaccused (who bought—if they did buy—the bicycle immediatelyafter the theft) must have been well aware that’they were buyingstolen property. I have no doubt they were. Their Counselcited Mahamadu v. Bandirala (3 N. L. R. 267) for the purpose ofshowing that Withers, J., considered that a charge of retainingnegatived dishonest receiving, and affirmed an honest receipt.That cannot be so.The charge of retaining simply means that
the accused are not charged with receiving; and in my opinion
evidence which would establish a charge of dishonest receivingmay, although no charge of dishonest receiving is preferred, beused to show the dishonesty of the retention. The conviction andsentences are affirmed.