Read the full judgment text of HCMA 000013/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 4 April 2005.
1. These two Appellants faced nine charges, brought against them jointly, of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. They pleaded not guilty, and were tried before E Yip, Esq. in the Magistrate’s Court at Eastern. Each charge involved the pawning of a counterfeit watch. Two issues arose under each charge. The first was whether it had been represented to the pawnbroker that the watch was genuine. The second was whether, if that representat