FOUND GUILTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 102, 3 May 1939, Page 12

FOUND GUILTY.

ATTEMPTED BURGLARY. AUSTRALIA* FOR SENTENCE. Two men appeared nn charge* of n I tempting to break Into a jeweller's *hop in VVyndlinin Street on .fiiuiinry :.'!>. In tho Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Fair. Duo of the two men, who are both Australian*, John Rellly, painter, aged 37, pleaded guilty *n<l wne stood down fur sentence. The trial proceeded ngaiivt the, other wan. George Bniale. motor mechanic, Aged 44, Mr. V. R. Meredith. Crown Prosecutor, conducting the prosecution. Accused was not defended. Mr. Meredith said the iicvnsod was changed with attempting to break Into tho shop of Adrian Tlmewell in the early hours of tlio morning. Constable Morrlmwy would give evidence that he hi-iird the (•nnishing of glass and saw Hellly and Numle leaving the doorway of TlniewoH's shop. Ho chased them Into Vulcan Lane and saw fteilly throw a jemmy Into » doorway. He grappled with Reilly, but Smale got away. Marks on the shop door corresponded exactly with the jemmy, and wooden wedge* corresponded with a piece of wood found in the room where the men were living. Constable Morrieioy described how he chased the two men. He had a good look at Hniale under a light. When the Court resumed till* morning the constable gave evidence of identification parades at which he Identified the accused Sinalc. Detective W. E. Turgis snid he had found a wooden wedge in the door of Tlmewell's nhop. There were about n do/.<*n jommy mark« on the door. Vlplte to the accused's room in Cook Htroet were described by Detective K. Xnhood. A «keleton key, a pair of glove*, a iiandbook for painting and decorating and a small block of wood were found there. Corroborative evidence wus given by Detective T. Sneddon, who was w'rth Detective, Mahood during the visits to the room In Cook titreet. Accused had told them he, was a recent arrival from Australia, and gave his name as Stanley White. K The Government analyst at Auckland. Kenneth Mawiey Griffin, gave, evidence <>f examining the two block* of wood. They ntted together exactly. The eell structure on one piece fitted the cell structure on tho other. There was no doubt that the smaller piece was split from the larger. In a short statement, tho accused niked the jury whether they were satisfl"d as to the certainty of the constable's identification. If not, he was entitled t" fhe benefit of tho doubt. His Honor told Vhe jury that the main mint they had to decide, was whether I '• > identitlcation waa clear and reliable. \fter a retirement of shortly under I'm IF an hour, the jury found ncutiecd Utility, and lie was remanded for sen--1.011 r«i.