S v Mattheus (313/85) [1986] ZASCA 46 (7 May 1986)

S v Mattheus (313/85) [1986] ZASCA 46 (7 May 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants did not genuinely believe the cheque would be honoured on the due date. The evidence showed that the appellants disclosed their lack of funds and explained their intention to deposit proceeds from a wood sale. The trial court erred in its factual findings and misapplied the presumption in section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The representation made by the appellants was not shown to be false, as it reflected their genuine belief and intention at the time. Consequently, the convictions and sentences could not stand.

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: Hauser Mattheus; Appellant: Anna Petronella Mattheus; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 1986
Case Number
313/85
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Trengove, Boshoff, Jacobs
Legal Topics
Fraud, False Representation, Burden of Proof, Dishonoured Cheque
Criminal Law Fraud False Representation Burden of Proof Dishonoured Cheque

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hauser Mattheus

Appellant

Anna Petronella Mattheus

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants made a false representation to the complainant regarding the payment of a post-dated cheque.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants did not genuinely believe the cheque would be honoured.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly applied the presumption in section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants did not genuinely believe the cheque would be honoured on the due date. The evidence showed that the appellants disclosed their lack of funds and explained their intention to deposit proceeds from a wood sale. The trial court erred in its factual findings and misapplied the presumption in section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The representation made by the appellants was not shown to be false, as it reflected their genuine belief and intention at the time. Consequently, the convictions and sentences could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeals of both appellants are upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.