A JUDGE today instructed a jury to find a solicitor's wife not guilty of two of the charges she faces.

Clare Scott, 62, is accused, along with husband Giles, of taking money from an elderly vicar who was no longer able to make her own decisions.

Teesside Crown Court has previously heard how Mrs Scott was the retired vicar's carer. She denies all the charges she is facing.

These relate to levying excessive amounts for services to the vicar, which involved doing her shopping, making meals and taking her to appointments.

Judge Peter Armstrong told the jury they should find her not guilty of making false representations in order to trade in the 78-year-old vicar's Ford Focus in part payment for a VW Tiguan car for her and her husband.

Mrs Scott, of Stearsby, near Thirsk, North Yorkshire, was also found not guilty on one charge of transferring criminal property.

The charge relates to Mrs Scott writing a cheque for £730, which the prosecution claim was money obtained illegally.

Judge Armstrong ruled that the carer should be cleared of the charge.

However, she is still facing six other counts of a similar nature.

He told the jury: "In respect of counts seven and 12 I have come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to consider these counts and I'm going to direct you to return not guilty verdicts."

Giles Scott, a former partner at Langleys solicitors in York, has already admitted a series of fraud and theft charges in respect of the former Anglican priest and also three other elderly victims for whom he had power of attorney.

Philip Standfast, prosecuting, said the 63-year-old, also of Stearsby, near Thirsk, had stolen £231,446 from the retired vicar, although £123,000 had been repaid.

He said each victim was incapable of looking after their own financial affairs and most of the money stolen ended up in the couple's joint account.

Mr and Mrs Scott are alleged by the prosecution to have been "robbing Peter to pay Paul" as they tried to maintain a high spending lifestyle, despite overdrafts on their joint account which frequently topped £10,000.

The trial continues.