the orders of Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade.

On Mrs. Wade's instructions, the Supreme Court jury formally declared the former United Bermuda Party MP not guilty of 17 charges of fraud and attempted fraud against BF&M Life Insurance Company.

In a four-page ruling, Mrs. Justice Wade said the evidence relied on by the prosecution was of "a tenuous character'' and contained "inherent weaknesses and inconsistencies''.

"I cannot ignore those inconsistencies and bearing them in mind together with my assessment of all the evidence adduced in the case, I find that a jury properly directed could not properly convict the defendant of the charges on the indictment,'' she said.

She made the ruling following almost two days of legal arguments over a submission by Mr. Julian Hall, representing Bridgewater, that there was no basis for the charges against his client. He made the submission at the close of the prosecution's case on Friday.

Mr. Hall, who claimed at the trial's opening the investigation of his client was "wrong-footed from the start'', said yesterday Mrs. Justice Wade's decision came as no surprise.

"This case should never have been brought to court in the first place,'' he said.

"It is a real pity people can be subjected to the reputation loss, expense and pain of long-winded trials without redress and no recovery of legal costs -- especially in this case where it concerns a professional man with a reputation to protect.

"It speaks volumes that BF&M had the nerve to encourage bringing these charges. It is a disgusting blot on our justice system.'' Solicitor General Mr. Barrie Meade refused to comment on Mr. Hall's statement or the outcome of the trial.

The prosecution alleged claims forms submitted by Bridgewater to the company between April 1989 and mid-1991 totalled $40,000. Seventy four percent of these were for bridge and crown work -- more than twice that of other dentists.

But Bridgewater maintained he submitted "pre-estimates'' for work intended but not done -- not claims and that he did more restorative work than other dentists.

Mrs. Wade ruled the onus was on the prosecution to demonstrate that Bridgewater made a mis-statement amounting to a pretence, that he knew the pretence was false and intended to defraud, and that he obtained money as a result.

But, she said, evidence must also show the false pretence "operated on the mind of the person alleged to have been induced ... to part with the relevant sums''.

This, she maintained, was not borne out by the Crown's evidence.

2 Bridgewater cleared Former BF&M Life claims administrator Beverley Knights, who processed the forms, said she considered them eligible for payment.

Mrs. Wade recorded Knights as saying: "As far as BF&M paying the dentist for work performed, the way I understood the company's policy was that the dentist was entitled to payment as long as the treatment had commenced.'' Knights also testified the company did on occasion pay on "pre-estimate''.

Mrs. Wade cited evidence of BF&M Life dental advisor Duncan Moran who admitted under cross-examination he adopted the same practice as the accused.

Furthermore, she said, on one claims form the words "pre-estimate'' were clearly written by Bridgewater.

And in a letter to Bridgewater from BF&M Life vice-president Judy Panchaud in September 1990, four other disputed claims were referred to as "pre-estimates''.

"Based upon all the evidence, I find that Miss Knights was not induced,'' Mrs. Wade said.

She added: "On review of the prosecution's case as a whole, I find that there are inconsistencies.''