COURT DRAMA.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 246, 18 October 1939, Page 6

COURT DRAMA.

SURPRISE MOVE.

CLAIM BY WITNESS.

IDENTIFICATION QUESTION.

BROTHER FACING CHARGES.

Declaring that there had been a case of mistaken identity, a witness in a criminal cane startled the Supreme Court to-day by claiming that he was the man responsible for passing <i stolen cheque—one of the charges on which his brother, the accused in the case, was facing trial.

The ease was heard before Mr. Justice Fair, and the accused was Charles Kichard George Ross (Mr. Noible), who was charged that he w«s responsible for the burglary of tlie Kerepeehi post office, on the Hauraki Plains, on February 1"> last. On several counts accused was charged with stealing 24 postal packets and a cheque for £21 14/, with forging ail endorsement on the dhequc and can - ing it to l>e acted on as genuine. A plea of not guilty was entered.

The Grown Prosecutor, Mr. V. ];. [ Meredith, said that on the evening of February 14 the Kerepechi post office was broken into. A good deal of mail matter for delivery was taken, ami an attempt made on the safe, which was danmged, but not opened. Thin cheque for £21 14/ turned up in Newmarket the day after the burglary, when Ross cashed it with a firm of drapers. He bought from them a suit and other articles to the value of £5 13/, and received the. balance of the cheque in cash. Ross was identified in August by two men from the shop. Question of Identity. Accused was identified this morning by the shop assistant and the manager of the shop, Gordon N. L. Watson, as the man who had purchased, among other articles, a suit identical with that produced in Court. Evidence from boarding house keepers was also led lu r the Crown to show that accused had worn a new .-uit similar in design on the occasion of his second visit, to their establishments at about the date of the alleged offence. Mr. Noble, for (he defence, attempted to show that accused had possessed a suit of similar pattern for a considerable period, but two witnesses failed to give positive identification. The next witness called was Sydney Gordon Kossj a brother of t(he accused. He said he was at present serving a prison sentence for a number of offences. He added that his brother's appearance in the dock was due to mistaken identity, but a=ked permission to address his Honor before giving further evidence. He then went on to say that he had been given to understand in one quarter that if he admitted another offence he might be tried, found guilty, and given an added sentence. He asked his Honor if that was true. His Honor -said tiha-t in view of the fact that witness was serving a lengthv term he could rest assured that if he was charged with a further crime and found guilty no added punishment would be inflicted. "I Am the N(an " "I am the man who passed* tihat cheque," said witness to Mr. Noble. "-My brother, the accused was nowhere near the shop." Mi". Noble: Did you sign the endorsement on the cheque?— Yes. "Then you take full blame for the cheque incident?" asked Mr. Meredith"\es, and rightly so," said Ross, who said that he and his brother had often been mistaken for each other.

"Isn't it a fact that now you feel fairly safe as far as further punishment is concerned you don't mind taking the blame?" asked Mr. Meredith. "Front your point of view it might appear so," said Ross. He said he had received the cheque from another person. He denied knowledge of the robbery. "T cannot say who it was, but it was certainly not my brother," he added. He said he had bought the suit in Court and, though lie took a size 6 and this was a size 5 he had been so anxious to get out of the shop that he had not worried about the size. "The Accused is the Man." His Honor recalled Gordon Watson, the manager of the clothing shop, and asked him if he thought witness looked like the man who cashed the cheque. "The accused is the man," said witness. "Ilis brother is much younger in appearance." After Mr. Noble and Mr. Meredith summed up, his Honor, in his direction to the jury, said the main point to consider would be whether the evidence of ' a witness who was serving a term in prison was sufficiently reliable. That was a question for the jury.

The jury retired shortly after 1 o'clock.