nearly $400,000 from estate of journalist Percy Ball -- is reserving judgment on whether to appeal his 1995 criminal conviction to the Privy Council in London.

Michael Scott, Vaucrosson's attorney, told The Royal Gazette a decision would be made after a review of the reasons for Court of Appeal's rejection of his appeal. Those reasons were handed down yesterday by Acting Chief Justice Norma Wade in the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging the "future may well be to appeal to the Privy Council'', Mr. Scott said the final decision would be made by Mr. Vaucrosson, who went on record in June, 1997, saying he appeal to the Privy Council "if someone lent me the money''.

The Court of Appeal upheld the jury's verdict of guilty on eight counts of stealing from the Ball estate after a one-day hearing earlier this year.

"Having heard the evidence and seen and observed the witnesses, the jury clearly rejected his version of the facts, and we have no reason to disagree with them,'' Court of Appeal judges Sir James Astwood, Sir Alan Huggins and Edward Zacca ruled.

Counsel for Vaucrosson lodged six grounds for appealing the original verdict, arguing Puisne Judge Norma Wade failed to uphold a no-case submission on the grounds that money -- legally termed a "chose in action'' -- in a bank cannot be stolen under the provisions of the Bermuda Criminal Code.

Incidental to that was a further complaint by lead defence counsel Frank Phipps QC that particulars of the case were not made available to the defence before the case was taken before the jury.

"It was not demonstrated to us that the (defence) was in any way prejudiced in meeting the Crown's case for lack of any further and better particulars,'' the Appeal Court judges ruled.

Further they concluded, that when Vaucrosson wrote a series of cheques against the Ball estate without authority of the beneficiaries, the cheques "became the vehicles used for removing the money from the bank''.

"When the money was in the form of cheques the beneficiaries still had an equitable interest in it,'' they ruled, adding: "When the cheques were negotiated to the various payees, the provision (of Section 332 (6)) of the (Bermuda Criminal) Code came into play, since this was sufficient movement of the equitable interest...'' The Court of Appeal also rejected defence submissions that the trial judge erred in law by admitting "a great amount of documentary evidence over the objections (of the defence), who argued it confused the jury and directed their attention from more important and relevant evidence.

"In our view,'' the judges wrote, "the documents tendered all relate to the administration of the Ball estate, of which the appellant (Vaucrosson) was the administrator.'' The Court of Appeal also rejected complaints the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported with regard to the evidence.

"There is overwhelming evidence in the record which if accepted by the jury would support the convictions. Having convicted, the jury must have accepted the evidence...

"In our judgment, the Judge was correct to leave the case to the jury to decide guilt or innocence on the eight counts. The jury having convicted, we had no reason to disagree with them and dismissed this ground,'' they ruled.