PERISCOPE USED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 32, 8 February 1939, Page 13

PERISCOPE USED.

WATCH ON SHOP. THEFT CHARGE IS SEQUEL VERDICT OF HOT GtrttTY. (By Telegraph.—Prese Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, Tuesday. Finding James Felix Mureh not guilty of the theft of £83, a jury added a rider in the Supreme Court to-day that it wished to express ite disapproval of the method used to trap Murch. The use of a periscope to watch March's ■ movements from a room above the shop n which he was employed wae described iy several witnesses for the Crown. Mr. Justice Nortlwroft presided. Murch pleaded not guilty to the theft of £35' from Kdmttnd William Hall. Outlining the case, Mr. A. W. Brown, for the Crown, said that Murch wae employed by Hall, who was a herbalist in Armagh Street. Hall's eon became suspicious of Mureh and hart a periscope installed in a room above the shop, by meane of which a private detective kept watch. On November 1 the investigator and Hal], jun., said they had a clear view of proceedings in the ehop below. They saw Murch take money from where Hall, sen., had placed it and put it in his pocket. When he wee accosted Murch denied tlie theft, but later lie produced £2N in notes, saying that he was keeping it for Ilall, sen., who had a bad memory. "A Good Citizen." Mr. t). W. KaseeN, for accused, said Murch had never been l>efote the Court before and two witnesses had told how they had found him to be a good citizen over a period of years. The onus of proof that accused was a thief rested entirely on the Ctown. There was no gainsaying that Murch took the money but the jury had to decide whether he Intended to return it or to steal it. Accused's contention was that he took the irioney to look after it for Hall, sen. Counsel drew attention to the dismissal about this time of two other assistants in the shop. Hie Honor said there were two ingredients in the crime of theft, the taking and the intention. The taking oi the money was acknowledged and the whole case turned on the intention of March. His Honor said the money had been taken in a secretive Way. Murch had failed to report ta Hall that day that he had taken it. He had denied taking it when accosted, and he had only returned £28. If the jury accepted What Hall, jun., had said, his. Honor thought 1 J it wonld have some difficulty in believr I ing what Murch maintained.

The jury presented its verdict after a lioit ictiieineiit.