THAT MYSTERIOUS PARCEL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 35, 9 February 1917, Page 6

THAT MYSTERIOUS PARCEL.

A GUARD'S PREDICAMENT. :CHARGED WITH THEFT. ACCUSATIONS DENIED. The case in which George Evans, a railway guard, was charged with the theft of a quantity of goods from a train between Auckland and Mercer, valued at £6 7/6, the property of the ISew Zealand Government, was continued at the Supreme Court before his Honor Mr. justice Hosking this morning. Hon. J. A Tole, K.C., appeared for the Crown, and Mr. W. Hackett for accused. The goods alleged to have heen stolen were consigned from Auckland to Waitoa on the Thames line in a parcel known as parcel- 375. Accused was in charge "of the train, 1 as far as Mercer, on which the parcel was placed, and when the goods were checked at Mercer this particular parcel was missing. Accused was seen taking a parcel into his van at Papakura, but when questioned subsequently stated that he had made a* mistake and taken a wrong parcel under the impression that it had to be put off the train. He also stated that he had' put it off at Whangarata, though no trace could be found of it. Meantime a woman residing iu\the vicinity of the railway line between Buckland and Tuakau had seen smoke issuing from the guard's van when the train was passing, and had also seen some burning material thrown from the van to the side of the line. Evidence in regard to this was given by Dudley Young, manager of the entering and dispatch department at' Macky, Logan and Caldwell, Ltd. The parcel, he said, "which was alleged to have been stolen had been'consigned by, his firm. He had been shown some of the burnt matter which had been picked up between Buckland and Tuakau, and after burning a quantity of material corresponding exactly to that consigned in the original parcel, he made a microscopic examination of the residue. A comparison of the residues in both cases showed them to be exactly the same. Mr. Hackett, in outlining the defence stated that accused, knowing that there was a parcel for Whangarata, had taken . out-this particular parcel by mistake, j When the train started again, and. he examined the way-bill, he found that: he had two parcels for Whangarata, and f that he bad taken the wrong one.. When the train arrived at Drury he! took this parcel and placed it in what, he thought was the original wagon,: though in vie*s;jof the fact that the par-j eel had gone astray, he had arrived at ;■ the conclusion that he must have placed? it in the wrong wagon, a mistake which could easily have been.made as the wagons were exactly alike. George Evans, the' accused, stated that he had been in the employ.of the Department fer nearly twenty years. He gave evidence, relative to' the mistake he had-made in taking the parcel' from the wagon, stating that, he had replaced it in a wagon at Drury. Hei had only heard of the suggestion that burning material had been thrown from, the van a few days ago, and .had no recollection of having had a fire in the stove.. '•'•, , i The case is proceeding. ■■'