ALLEGED THEFT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 185, 7 August 1925, Page 3

ALLEGED THEFT.

JURY FAIL TO AGREE. j XEW TRIAL ORDERED. The trial of Anthony Claude Gumm, alias Charles Grace, on charges of breaking and entering and theft, and receiving stolen goods, was continued yesterday afternoon. Addressing the jury, Mr. Sullivan said, the three indictments were serious ones. He submitted that the Crown had failed to prove its case. The evidence in reference to the breaking and entering had not been substantiated, and the only evidence was that of Rae, who wa* i known as an accomplice. He was the Crown witness, and he asked if they could convict accused on that evidence. They had only suspicion to go on, and that surely was not enough to warrant them taking away a man's liberty. It was true that he had a motor cycle in his possession, but he contended that there was no evidence to prove that he had stolen the machine. With regard to the charge of receiving he said the law was perfectly clear on that point. I He submitted that the Crown had failed again to prove that accused had received the machine knowing it to have been 1 dishonestly obtained. I Mr. Meredith said the ca?e of breaking and entering might not appear strong, but he submitted that the evij dence on the charge of receiving was very convincing. Accused must have j been aware of the reputation of Rap. I and the mere possession of the motor j cycles would have to he explained by j accused. The conflicting statements by I Rae were incriminating. His Honor Mr. Justice Herdman ■ ; stated that there was no doubt tliat i both the cycles Irul been stolen by some : man or men. The jury might not fee- , Here Rae when he said he had taken I both machines away without assistance. . The onus was on the man in poesess'on !of stolen property to explain its origin. 'In this case accused had given an es- | planation. but it remained for the I jury to say if it was a feasible explanation. Referring to the #ale of the cycle. ' he said the evidence of Rae was of little i value, sinci- , he was in the position of ! being an accomplice. The jury retired at 3.10 pjn. and re- ' turned at 3..>;"> with a verdict of not i ffuiltv on the first two counts, and a i failure to agree on the charge of receiving. i His Honor said he could not take that I decision. He would take the verdict lin the first two instances, but the jury I would have to reconsider in the last ; instance. The jury returned at the expiration of four hours still being unable to agree. His Honor recorded the verdicts of not guilty and ordered a new trial for I Monday.