REMOVAL OF SAFE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 142, 18 June 1938, Page 12

REMOVAL OF SAFE.

THREE MEN ACCUSED.

ALLEGED THEFT OF £466.

QUESTIONS TO WITNESS. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) PALMERSTON NORTH, this day. At the conclusion of the taking of evidence in the Magistrate's Court. Thomas Lucinskv, Maurice Lucinsky and Edward Charles Young pleaded jiot guilty to breaking and entering the count ingliouse of J. L. Bennett, Limited, on the night of May 20 and removing therefrom a safe and contents valued at £44(5 4/ti. They were committed to the Supreme Court for trial. In evidence, Detective-Sergeant Meiklejohn stated that the carrier on the back of Young's car bore evidence of having been used to remove something heavy, as it was lower at one end than the other, ne was of opinion that gelignite had been used in an attempt to open the safe. Young bad told him that at Bennett's he had seen Tom Lucinskv with a hacksaw. Witness picked up Maurice Lucinsky in- Broadway, Palmerston North, on May 31, and when told that he was to be questioned about the safe robbery Lucinskv hung his brad, but said nothing. At the police station, when told of the facts as the police knew them. Lucinskv again said nothing, keeping his eyes on the floor. Witness also told of the discovery of the pinch bars, hacksaw and spade in Young's toolhouse, which was locked, and the digging up of money in Young's fowlliouse. The weight of the safe and contents was juet over 3Jcwt and it would take three men to lift it on to the carrier of a car. The police had to get a truck with crane to lift it out of the hole where it had been buried on the roadside. The police put Young in the witness box, the latter stating that he had met the two Lucinskvs at 11 o'clock on the night the safe was taken. That night he saw a safe similar to the one in court, but accused refused to say the I time at which he saw it, and also refused to answer questions as to the time that night or next morning he last saw the Lucinskv brothers. The detective-sergeant asked witness for his grounds for refusing to answer, witness replying that he did not know what his grounds were. The Detective-Sergeant (to Bench): If he doesn't.know, be should know. The Bench: It is very evident he is not going to give evidence for your side of the case. The Detective-Sergeant (to Young) : Are Tom and Maurice Lucinskv nephews of yours ?—Yes. Will you give evidence about the safe and its removal t—No. Do you also refuse to answer any questions about the hacksaw and other exhibits?—l refuse to answer. Will you answer any further question* about your movements or Maurice and Tom Lucinskv on the nights of May 2ti and May 28 ?— No. All accused were committed for trial on July 18. Counsel applied for bail, which was opposed by Detective-Sergeant Meiklejohn, who pointed out that when the accused were remanded by the magistrate bail had been refused, and since then the amount involved bad increased from £22") to £440. The point was whether these men deserved to be at large. Safe stealing and safe blowing were looked upon as serious crimes, and. further, there was still a sum of £00 unaccounted for and apparently planted somewhere. Both the Lucinskvs had had previous experiences in court. ,The application was refused.