Michelin, J.
This is an appeal by way of case stated from the conviction of the accused before Mr. Austin Cathie, District Commissioner, at Akuse on the 3rd February, 1931. The offence with which the accused was charged and convicted reacls as follows :-
"For that you on the 28th day of October, 1930, in the Volta "River district and within the jurisdiction of the Court were found " in possession of one half-sovereign which is reasonably suspected " having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and that you did not "give an account to the satisfaction of the Court as to how you " came by the same, contrary to section 110 of Cap. 29."
He was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for two months. A case has now been stated for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law-
" Q. Was there any evidence before the Court in proof of " the fact that the property found in the possession of the accused "was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully " obtained ?"
The learned District Commissioner in the course of his stated case, stated as follows :-
"Although the prosecution had not actually said that it "reasonably suspected the half-sovereign had been stolen or "unlawfully obtained, the framing of the charge by it and the "reading of the charge to the accused was evidence that it did so "reasonably suspect."
He then proceeded to give his reasons for coming to the conclusion that the accused had not given an account to his satisfaction as to how he came by the half-sovereign and for convicting the accused.
Mr. Acolatse in arguing the case on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there was no evidence before the Court in proof of the allegation contained in the charge that the half-sovereign found in the possession of the accused was reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and that the conviction was therefore bad.
Mr. M'Carthy on behalf of the respondent submitted, however, that it was clear from the evidence of the police constable who arrested the accused, that he suspected the accused of being in unlawful possession of the coin. While he agreed that the mere fact of the accused being found in possession of a half-sovereign would not of itself be a suspicious circumstance, he contended that the fact that the accused gave conflicting statements to the constable as to how he came into the possession of the half-sovereign would be sufficient to create reasonable suspicion in the mind of the constable
