HAMILTON SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 136, 8 June 1917, Page 6

HAMILTON SUPREME COURT.

■ YESTERDAY'S SITTINGS. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, Thursday. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, Hamilton, were resumed this afternoon, before his Honor Mr. Justice . Cooper. ILLEGALLY ON THE PREMISES. Edwin Richardson, alias Edwin Cannainc, was charged that on or about 4th April he was unlawfully in the dwelling of Lawrence Dunn, at Ngaruawahia, with intent to commit a crime, to wit, theft. The evidence went to show that accused stayed at the Delta Hotel on the night in question, and was allotted bedroom No. 2, the landlord and his wife occupying bedroom No. 9. At about 2.30 a.m. Mrs. Dunn was awakened by somebody in the room, and, thinking it was her daughter, called out. "Is that you, Mollie?" but received no answer, and then noticed that the person was going through her husband's pockets. She called Dunn, and said, "There's a thief in the room. Shoot him!" The intruder then left the room, and though Dunn got out of bed he did not follow the man up, but returned to bed. Accused got up shortly after 6 o'clock and went out, returning to the hotel a little later. Upon going back to his bedroom Dunn locked the door and communicated with the police. Constable Cavanagh subsequently took accused to Mrs. Dunn for identification, but she stated that, though the man she saw in her room and accused were similar in build, hair and whiskers, she did not. see his face, and could not positively swiear to him, though she believed he was the man. Accused was not represented counsel, and declined to give evidence. He created some amusement by his dramatic attitude while cross-examining the witnesses. He is apparently of a somewhat excitable temperament, and accused all connected with the case as having a grudge against him. In summing up his Honor submitted three questions to the jury: (1) Did the prisoner stay at the hotel on the night in question? (2) Did he enter bedroom No. 9? (3) Was he there with intent to commit a crime? After a short retirement the jury answered the first question in the affirmative, but they did not consider tlie evidence strong enough to establish the second. This being tantamount to a verdict of i not guilty, Richardson was discharged.