AFTER BRISCOE'S FIRE.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 129, 1 June 1921, Page 5

AFTER BRISCOE'S FIRE.

FIREMEN BEFORE THE COURT. CHARGE OF THEFT DISMISSED. A second prosecution for theft, arising out of Briscoe's fire, on March IG, came before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., to-day, when James Morton, a member of the city fire brigade at the time, was charged with the theft of half-a-dozen table-knives. The case resttd largely on the evidence of William Balchin, who had been also in the brigade and is now in Mount Eden gaol for theft at the same fire. Balchin stated that he received the table-knives from Morton who told him he had taken them from Briscoe's when on duty at the fire. Mr. Hall Skolton (for accused): Did you not tell mc that you stole the knives, not Morton? —I did. • Why do you now say Morton took them? —I am on oath now. Why did you tell mc a deliberate lie?—Morton told mc to make out I took them. Chief Detective McMahon: Who defended you when you were charged with theft from this fire?— Mr. Hall Skelton. Chief Detective: I should like your Worship to note that Mr. Skelton appeared for this man, and after the man is convicted tries to explode his evidence by using what was given in confidence. Detective McHugh stated that Balchin implicated Morton at the outset, and never at any time went back on that statement. Witness searched Morton's room and found, amongst his belongings, stuff that bore signs of having been in a fire. Mr. Hall Skelton: I object. That has nothing to-do with this charge. The Magistrate allowed the evidence, and the detective said that he found new silk handkerchiefs, gloves, boots, and about fourteen yards of velveteen. All this stuff had signs of smoke and scorching. He said he had jjot it from a man in Wellington, but this man could not be found, and some stuff had been identified as coming from a shop owned by a man called Dromgool, whose •place in Wellington was destroyed by fire in December last. Cross-examined by Mr. Hall Skelton witness said that the smoke marks showed on the tags of the silk handkerchiefs, on socks, and on the soles and heels of the boots, while the velveteen was obviously fire-marked. Counsel: Didn't lie say the velveteen was useless and he had it only for cleaning down the engine.—No. To the Chief Detective. Accused had been given every opportunity for explaining about the smoke-marked stuff. He only said he had got it from a man named "Cox," whose Christian name he didn't know, and had given no other help to find Cox. Mr. Hall Skelton submitted that there was no case to answer so far as the table-knives were concerned. The only evidence against Morton, was that of an alleged accomplice, who had himself been convicted of theft and admitted having lied about the matter. Hir Worship stated that it seemed strange that Balchin should have made the statement implicating the other man when there was no animosity between them. At the same time, it was considered unsafe to convict on the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, and occused would be given the benefit of the doubt. Charge dismissed. On two charges of having stolen, at Wellington in December, goods valued at £4 5/, the property of S. E. Dromgool, and other goods (value £2 10/), the property of some person unknown, accused was remanded to appear at Wellington next Wednesdayi "We have quite a satisfactory reply to these accusations," remarked Mr. Hall Skelton, for accused.