THEFT OF WOOL.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19545, 15 February 1929, Page 3

THEFT OF WOOL.

AMBERLEY MAN CHARGED, j JURY'S VERDICT OF GUILTY. ' '"Guilty on. both charges," was the . verdict of the jury in the case which j was concluded in the Supreme Court j yesterday, m which Frederick Arthur j Hayward IV-nfold was charged, before j his Honour Mr Justice Adams, witu j the tlicit, at Amber ivy. oil .November j 23rd, of 24 fleeces of wool, valued i at £l2, tne property oi John Henry j James, and also with the theit at Amberley, on the same date, of 15 fleeces j of wool valued at £lO. the property oi s Busch Brothers. . I Mr A. \Y. Brown appeared for tlie prosecution, and Mr C. S- Thomas rep- j resented the accused. In his address to the jury, Mr Brown ; said that it was their duty to sift the j evidence and find from the facts pre- | scnted in evidence whether accused was j guilty or not guilty. If the Crown had proven the case beyond all reasonable doubt, then it was the duty ™ the jury to convict the accused, but if there was any reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. The doubt, however, must be a reasonable one. Mr Brown recapitulated the facts the case. James and Busch left troir wool in open sheds and one f mnd -j fleeces cone the following m u mug, and the other 15 fleeces. Then, the following morning, Penfold cot into touch with a dealer and offered to sell h<m 30 fleeces of wool. In the witness box, the accused said that the two bags »een on his car contained not wool but firewood, and he alleged that the evidence of Hamilton and Evan* was a tissue of lies. James and Busch, said Mr Brown, were obviouslv honest men, who identified the wool as their own. The wool was recovered the day after it 'was stolen, 15 fleeces being found on or near Hamilton's property and 44 being recovered from Hamilton himself This made a total of 59 fleeces. Mr Brown pointed out that there was a remarkable cohesion in the statistics of the case. The number that was aliened to b« stolen by Penfold was 39, and this, with the 20 sheep Atwell stated to have shorn on Penfold s place, also made a total of 59 fleeces. Again, the fleeces that were identified byJames and Busch, plus the ones that they almost identified, also totalled 3J>, the number alleged to have been stolen. There was a suggestion that cither or both Hamilton and Evans had something to do with the theft of the wool. One day, Mr Brown pointed out to the jury, they themselves might be in just such a position aa were Evans and Hamilton. They might have bought wool honestly and then have to stand in the witness-bo* and be pilloried. If Hamilton had stolen the wool would he have left it 400 yards from his own house after he had already been found with some of the stolen wool in his possession 1 It Hamilton was the culprit, why was it that it was Penfold who made the appointment for the dealt In the box, accused had shown hesitation when questioned concerning the tread on his motor tyre*. Regarding the evidence brought by the defence as to Penfold bringing two bags of wood to Christchureh, the only one who could give the exact date was the accused, while one of the inspectors had said that accused always tarried a lot of stuff on the running board. His Honour, addressing the jury, said that they most consider each eharge, and he would not trouble them with references to the evidence. In all sueh cases the evidence should not be considered piece by piece, bnt in its accumulation. If the Crown had proved bevond all reasonable doubt that Penfold was guilty on either charge it was their duty to convict him, but the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of any doubt that they, as reasonable men, might entertain. His Honour said that he would say a word regarding the evidence of the witnesses, Hamilton and Evans. Every witness in the Court was required to submit to a cross-examination as vigoronj as counsel might think fit. It happened in the ease in question that the witnesses were not financially good, but he would urge the jury to guard against any adverse impression that might be gained from such men who had been unfortunate, perhaps, in business, and sueh an impression should not be given undue weight if they gave theix evidence frankly. The jury then retired at 11.9 a.m. and returned at 12.53 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on both charges. The prisoner was remanded for sentence till to morrow morning.