Harragin, C.J. There is no substance in any of the grounds of appeal as submitted by the appellant, but in the course of the argument, it was noted that the learned Judge in his summing-up at page 60 when considering the question of guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant makes the following statement:- “On the other band, if you believe what Yaro says that the price obtained was £100, that is to say, less than 1s. per yard, and that Boateng resold it to , Kunada at more than double what he had paid for it then you should have solid grounds for finding conclusively that he knew at the time he was handling the khaki that it was stolen property.”
Yaro in his statement to the police certainly indicates something of this description, but this is not evidence against the appellant. and when Yaro gave evidence in the witness box he did not refer to this transaction. Had the matter rested there; it might have been fatal, but it is fortunate for the Crown that there is other reliable evidence which supports this statement which no doubt, through inadvertence, the learned Judge omitted. We refer to the evidence of Sub-Inspector Amaning and a man by the name of Musa Kado, both of whom state that the appellant asked Kado at the Station if he Kado had been present when the appellant paid £200 to Yaro. This suggestion of the appellant clearly shows that he was intimately concerned in the transaction which has now turned out to be highly criminal and corroborates the evidence of Kunada that he paid the Appellant more than £200.
In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the misdirection of the learned Judge referred to above could have caused no miscarriage of justice.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.