WIRE ROPE CASES.

Auckland Star, Issue 123, 24 May 1919, Page 12

WIRE ROPE CASES.

AiLEGSD WATEHFHONT TEETT. BEGUN AT SLTREMi: COURT. TWO ILL"X ACQUITTED. The first of a scries of charges arising out. oi the alleged theft oi a quantity oi wire rope was heard at the Supreme | Court before Mr. Justice Stringer yes- j, terdav afternoon, when Sydney Mark Clark, timekeeper to the Shaw, f-'avili and Albion S.S. Co., and John Dunn, foreman stevedore to the tame company, ■were charged that en or about January i 21 la-t they stole three coils of wire rope, valued"at £129 11/. An alternative | ( e-han.e of rcri-ivinp the γ-ijh'. knowing it j to have Ij-.vu dishonos-th obtained, was j •il-o laid. Hon. ■'■ A. T ■Iβ, K.i'., prose-ii cured, and Mr. A. J. Moody appeared lor : the d. fence. William James Robinson, a carrier, state! that nn January _7 he rweiyed a telephone message to g'j to tiie >haw, j f-avill Co.'s gear shed on l:ie King's nharf. There" ho was met by Dunn and . another man, who put on to his cart. | three coils of -wire rope, and told k:m to take them to Long, Ormiaton and Co., Euichinery brokers. He d:d so, saying that the "rope was from the i'a&f, Savill Company. Thomas A. Lovie. a partner in the firm of Long, onni=ton and Co., said that Clark and Dunn arrived at his store abioit simultaneously with the rope. In ■ reply to a question, Clark stated that he | lad not communicated »n!i the firm about the rope before. Witness then said that be* could not deal with the j matter in the absence of his partner, Mr. , Ormu-ion, who was unwell. He asked whether everything was ail right, and ■was told that this" itas so. His reason for asking was that this was the second i lo: of wire rope that they had brought to the store, ant , , he wanted an assurance that it had been honestly come by. They could not tell him "the exact weight of the coik. but said that the price was 2/ a pound. The rope was apparently new, though thimbles had been placed upon some of the ends. The coils contained 3-2 fathoms each, ami their total weight was 4301b. Dunn aga:n discussed the price with him next day. the rope being still in the firm s store, and afked '2 a pound tor one coil or 1/9 if all three were taken. Nothing -was done till Mr. Orniiston came back on February 6th. when it was decided not to purchase the rope, and Dunn was informed accordingly. The rope was not removed from the store. Captain Joseph Maxwell, marine superintendent at Auckland for the Shaw, Savill and Albion Co., said that he visited Long, Ormiston and Co.'s store at the request oi Detective Gourley, and there saw three wire cargo " runners" i similar to those used on steamers of the Oceania Steamship Co.. which' came to Auckland under the Bhaw, Savill Co.'s auspices, and to -which the s.s. Suevic. in port about that time, belonged. The present value of such rope was about 6/ a pound. In reply to Mr. Moody witness said that r.o record was kept of other than Shaw, Savill gear. He was aware that an inquiry about missing wire was held on the Suevic. and that it could not be definitely established that the vrire in question belonged to her. The evidence of the first officer, boatswain an-d storekeeper of the is. Suevic ■was read to the jury. This was to the effect that the three coils of rope were similar in every respect to the cargo "* runners " used on the vessel. The storekeeper stated that while the vessel was in pert at Auckland, someone called to him in the storeroom to hoist up three runners, which he did. He had no idea what, happened to them afterwards. Detectives Lambert and Gourley stated that Dunn admitted removing the rope from the deck of the f"Jevic, and Clark also admitted being a party to the whole business, but neither of them ■would give a statement in writing. Lα answer to Mr. Moody, Detective Gourl«v stated that both accused had previously borne a. good reputation on the "Waterfront for a number of years. Mr. Moody did not call evidence, but addressed the jury in support of the contention that the Crown had failed to prove that the rope had been stolen. He laid stress on the fact that the Suevie ■witnesses could not s-ay thnt any wire rope of the kind in question was missing from the ship. Counsel also submitted that the rope was of a kind used on almost all large steamers, an-d also elsewhere, and that in view of the evidence the jury was bound to assume that it did not come from the Suevic. Summing- up, his Honor referred to the fact that the rope hud been offered for sale very much below its market value, and that the Crown evidence, including the alleseii confessions of the accused to the detectives, had not been contradicted. The Crown, he said, had simply to show that there was a reasonable presumption that the rope belonged to someone other than the accused, and that it had been stolen. After considering their verdict for anout an hour the jury acquitted both excused.