BARKER'S BAD BREAK.

NZ Truth, Issue 59, 4 August 1906, Page 5

BARKER'S BAD BREAK.

Did He Fall or Was He. Poshed?

Whole Dray Loads of Timber Diverted to Bird's Bungalow,

But the Magistrate Decide! That the Bird Brothers Were Hot In it.

Timber was the source, of the trouble that a carter named William Barker bumped up against at the Criminal Court last Tuesday. He was charged with having, on May 28, of this year, stolen 1981fb of timber, matai and totara, the property of the Taupo Timber Co., Ltd. Barker,, of course, pleaded not guilty and Crown Prosecutor Myers proceeded to summarise the facts. The 1981 ft of timber the Crown reckoned on as being two dray-loads. About the day mentioned m the indictment the vessel Torgauten came down from the North laden with timber, belonging to the said company. Barker was employed, by a carting contractor, named Good, to convey the timber! from the vessel to the company 'a, yards m Taranaki-streefc. Two cartloads, according to the Crown, i:n-> stead of finding their way to the; yards went to the PREMISES OF BIRD BROS., m Ebor-street. The said timber was; seen on the latter premises, by Bernard Alfred Hansen, manager of the- - company, and when Barker was questioned about the timber m Bird's place he said he got that timber from a truck at the Government Station.. Later on he made an amended statement to the effect that the timber was brought by' him from Hataitai,-; where Bird Bros, were building a cottage. It came out subsequently during the course of the evidence' that Bird Bros, had been prosecuted at the Police Court on a charge of receiving the stolen property, but were acquitted. The timber, forming the subject of the prosecution, Hansen claimed to be the Taupo and Totara Company's property. He judged it so, because of certain marks, its quality,and the manner m whirh it was sawn at the mills, where the saw> § was peculiar m some respect or oth- ./- er. There seemed to be, a lax system -; of management at the yards because no check was kept of the loads o*~. timber, delivered there. The mirv if—turned out about 250,000 yards Jt timber every week, and the manager reckoned that it was not possible that the timber alleged to have been stolen could have been procured elsewhere. He admitted, however, thai; it was 'quite possible. that one builder, might sell to another. There was *'••.• LOT OF EVIDENCE called and one witness named Hamilton gave his version of a conversation ■] he alleged that he once had with Barker and the two Birds. It seems that " Hamilton was engaged at the Taupo •.;•■•■ T.T. Company's yard, where he had: . assisted m unloading Barker's cart 1, on May 28. He was receiving one '"^.jii shilling per hour and the Birds' wan-T ted him to say that' Barker had unloaded .three times on that day at the Company's yard. He {Hamilton)! was further promised that if he got the sack from the Company, theyi (the Birds) 1 would guarantee him. a job for 18 months at either. £3 £4 a week, which, he was not sufe. "^ ' The case for the Crown had not concluded on Tuesday afternoon. The Court adjourned to the following morning, when the Crown Prosecutor ca^Sfgm led a couple of witnesses and"tht^^^ closed the case. - The defence set up by Mr Herdman, who appeared for the accused., was to the effect that Barker was seen m the yard of the Timber Company on the afternoon of May 28, and a couple of employees of the Timber concern gave evidence to this effect. They were able to swea* it, because that afternoon Barker BROUGHT SOME BEER . 3 with him, "but they could not go .the " . •*■ length of swearine that <Sn that after- .„: noon Barker unloaded his dray of any; * timber. The whole point was whether Barker had delivered four drayloads of timber, on that date, at the Tafanaki>-street yard. If . the jury could be satisfied on that point, then j the case for the prosecution fell to $ the ground. fi« A barmaid named Butler was call- 'I ed to prove that a man somewhat re- 1 sembling the accused called at the I Clyde Hotel about one o'clock on -""'I May 28 and had a drink. This, it was contended, went to prove tfie truth of the accused's assertion that he had that day proceeded to Hataitai. This evidence was further strengthened ,by that given by a plumber : named McKinley_, who positively >- swore that he saw a dray near Bird's -'; house at Hataitai. That dray was ' ;: like one belonging to Good, and it < was Good's dray that the accused was driving. This witness, moreover, said that he saw some timber m the ; unfinished house being built by the ■% Birds'. He did not see that dray -\ returning from Bird's house. The i plumber stated also that he did all Bird's plumbing work and was asked^ to give his evidence when ""hr rm, /:'' was m the police. court. ' The Crawn gave evidence m rebuttal to the effect that THE BEER EPISODE was not on Monday, May 2S, but on, the following day. :■;• After counsel had addressed the jury - the Chief Justice summed up adversely to the accused, during the course ■ of which he said that the timber that was found' on Bird's premises seemed' to be similar to that owned by the , Company. When asked about the timber Barker HAD TOLD A LIE about it, by saying that he got' ib from the Government Station. Next he declined to say anything about it. Why was not the owner of the 'timber called ? Where were the Birds ? The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. Barker was remanded till Friday for sentence. His Honor informed the —% jury that the recommendation to mercy would be considered, but unfortunately Barker had once before been convicted of theft.