SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21400, 16 February 1935, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS (Before Mr 'Justice Johnston.) GUILTY OF EECEIVING - Cyril Rhodes was charged with the theft, on October 17, 1933, of a motorcycle valued at £l*2 10s, and alternatively with receiving certain parts of the machine knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr A. T. Donnelly prosecuted for the Crown, and Mr D. W. Russell, with him Mr C. V. Lester, appeared for the accused. Mr Donnelly said that the motorcycle was stolen irom outside a house in Cashel street, Linwood, on October 17 1933. That was the last the owner saw of it until March 26, 1934, when he recognised parts of the machine in a cycle shop in Manchester street. Fleete, the owner of the machine, was a capable mechanic, and din all his own work on the machine. On the parts in the shop he was able to recognise evidence of his workmanship. Mr Powell, the proprietor of the shop, stated that Rhodes, who was a dirt track rider, brought the parts into the shop in October or November, 1933. When interviewed by the police Rhodes explained his possession of the parts by saying that in 1928 he bought a motor-cycle from a man named Wackinshaw, and • produced a receipt for the first instalment on the machine. He bought second-hand parts to replace unsatisfactory parts in the machine, and when he later disposed of it he had some parts left over. These were, he claimed, the parts he gave to Powell. Addressing the jury, Mr Russell said that the evidence disclosed that when first Fleete missed his motor-cycle he took the number of a bicycle left nearby and gave it to the police. The. investigation'showed that bicycle was not Rhodes's. The evidence showed also that Rhodes attempted to make nothing out of. the parts. The evidence of Powell was that Rhodes first introduced Fleete to him. Would he have done this if he had a guilty knowledge of Fleete's property being in Powell's shop. Again, the evidence of Powell showed that the repairs carried out on the parts of the machine concerned, which Fleete claimed to be able to recognise as his own work, were merely standard practice, and might be found on any similar machine. The jury retired at 12.25 p.m. and returned., at 3.22 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on the charge of receiving. Rhodes was remanded for sentence. ' THEFT FROM HOTEL Harry Thomas Betts and George Baynon Carey were charged with the theft on January 15, at ChrAtchurch, of a suitcase and contents valued at £6 10s and £3 in money, the property of Charles Fitzgerald. They were also charged with receiving one white silk shirt knowing it to have been dishonestly "obtained. Mr A. B. Hobbs appeared for both accused. For the Crown, Mr D'dnn'ellv said that the suitcase was stolen from a room in the King George Hotel. The shirt, which was in the suitcase, was found in the room occupied by both accused, and could be identified by Fitzgerald by stains- on the cuff caused by boils on his wrist. On January 19 Betts and Carey were both about the hotel, and the former during the afternoon was found upstairs, where he had no right to be, and was put out by the barman. Mr Hobbs, for the accused, criticised the means of identification of the shirt, and also submitted that it was significant that nothing had been found, of the other articles in the suitcase, although it could be assumed that a canvass had been made, after the usual practice of the police, of second-hand shops. The jury retired at 1.5 p.m., and returned at 2.30 p.m., with a verdict of guilty on the theft charge in each case. The accused were remanded for sentence. > VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY Robert William Leeming and Alexander Hamilton William Day, for both of whom Mr F. D. Sargent appeared, were charged with the theft on November 5, at Whitecliffs, of 10 blankets one clock, 30 gramophone records, one pair of scissors, two bottles of wine, 10 teaspoons, six tins of fruit, and one part bottle of whisky of a total value of £l2, the property of Ernest Alfred Johnson. Alternatively they were charged with receiving the goods knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. The Crown Prosecutor said that the articles were stolen from an isolated hut at Whitecliffs. Johnson, the owner, left it locked up in September, but at the end of November found "it had been broken into. The accused lived in the neighbourhood, and the evidence was that they went shooting in the direction of the hut. They were interviewed by the police, and a portion of the stolen goods recovered from each accused. Each hid blankets similar to those stolen. Leeming had an old pair of scissors belonging to Johnson in his possession and a dozen records, all of them having titles similar to those stolen. Day had the teaspoons in his possession, which he claimed to have won at a side-show at Reefton. Leeming claimed tu have brought the blankets from the West Coast, and Day stated that the pair of scissors had been lying round their residence for some time. For the defence, Mr Sargent submitted that the articles alleged to have been stolen by the accused could not be identified. Evidence would also be brought to show that the accused had no opportunity of stealing the goods. The jury, after a retirement of an hour, brought in a' verdict of not guilty on each charge, and the accused were discharged.

CIVIL JURISDICTION INJUNCTION NOT GRANTED Reserved judgment for the defendants was given by his Honour in the case in which Radley Brothers, Ltd., of Christchurch, wholesale fruit and produce merchants (Mr J. H. Upham), proceeded against Reilly's Central Produce Market, Ltd., Dunedin, wholesale fruit and produce merchants, H. L,.Tapley and Company, Ltd., of Dunedin, shipping agent, and Oswald Reilly, of Dunedin, fruit merchant (Mr J. D. Hutchison), asking for an injunction, in view of an arrangement between the parties .for the disposal of Samoan and Niue Island bananas, restraining the defendants from selling in the Christchurch district more than 100 cases of Niue Island bananas from any one shipment of the Maui Pomare i from Niue during 1935. His Honour, in refusing the injunction, said the case was clearly not one in whieh an injunction should be granted. His judgment would be without prejudice to the parties in .any other action. His Honour said he regretted that the parties had not availed themselves of the opportunity given of effecting a settlement. The defendants were allowed £lO 10s costs and disbursements.