CHARGE AGAINST SALESMEN

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22464, 27 July 1938, Page 9

CHARGE AGAINST SALESMEN

THEFT FROM SHOP ALLEGED EVIDENCE of men now IN PRISON REFERENCE TO STATEMENTS TO POLICE A charge against a former employee of the D.1.C., Trevor Vesey Cook, of stealing cutlery and pots of a total value of £23 16s 3d from that firm, was begun in the Supreme Court yes-* terday, before his Honour Mr Justice Northcroft. ' A feature of the case was evidence given for the Crown against Cook by Tom Haszard and Hugh Lowther, both of whom are at present serving terms of imprisonment, Haszard for theft from the D.1.C., and Lowther for receiving. . , . . The case, which is part heard, will be continued to-day. Mr A. W. Brown was Crown Prosecutor, and Cook was represented by Mr T. A. Gresson. > Several references were made in the case to the procedure adopted by detectives in taking statements from Cook, and to the actual statements produced. George Octavius Robinson and Charles Edward Sendall. departmental managers, and Hubert C. Hassall, the firm’s manager, gave evidence of the firm’s rules and practices about the issue of goods from departments. Whatever goods went out should be entered in the assistant’s book, it was Toni Haszard, at present serving a term of imprisonment for theft from the D.1.C.. where he had been employed, said that accused had told him he was worried about meeting a repair bill on a car. Witness told him h2 could make money by thieving, and told him details of how the goods could be supplied to Hugh Lowther, who would call in for the‘goods. Payment for the goods was discussed, and after giving goods to Lowther, accused would give witness money from Lowther. Witness denied ever himself handling the cutlery he said Cook gave to Lowther. Under cross-examination Haszard denied that in the criminal room at the Magistrate’s Court he had ever threatened to "drag Cook into it.” If he was told that Cook had not had a motor-car until November last, he would still state that Cook, when he first spoke with witness, spoke about a motor-car repair bill. To Mr Gresson, Haszard said that he had • not discussed the case with Lowther on the ride in from the gaol yesterday morning. When Police Were Told To his Honour, witness said that when the police approached him about Lowther’s possession of cutlery, he had told them the truth. He had told the police this before he was sentenced in the Supreme Court. Hugh Lowther, now serving a term of imprisonment for receiving, said he knew Cook, although he had not known his name until the Court proceedings.

Seven or eight times he had been to the hardware department at the D.I.C. and received parcels from Cook. He had given Haszard money to give to Cook.

Lowther, under cross-examination, said it would be untrue to say that he received the'goods through Haszard, but agreed that he had paid money only to Haszard. He had only Haszard’s word that Cook had ever received money. Asked if Haszard and himself had discussed the case that morning oft the ride in from Paparua, Lowther said that they had been discussing the matter for months. Lowther also told his Honour- that the information he had given the police was" given before he was sentenced. To Mr Gresson. he admitted that he was now on such good terms with the police that they called him “Hughie, but added that he had always been on good terms with the police. Detective’s Evidence Detective-Sergeant James Bickerdike said he had interviewed Cook in April. Cook had identified the cutlery and had said he was worried about the whole affair. Cook said to witness that he knew the cutlery had not been paid for, and that he handed the parcels to Lowther. To Mr Gresson, Bickerdike said he could not account for a statement accused made a few minutes later to Detective Watt, in which he made no admission of guilt. He had not been present when that statement was taken. He said he had never heard himself described as “the tough guy at the Christchurch station,” and as the man who never failed to secure a statement. He had not taken the statement in writing because he had been very busy that day, but he was sure he remembered it correctly. He .had interviewed Cook himself because he was in possession of confidential information, which in these circumstances he would not divulge. Detective R. H. Watt said that he and Detective Burns had interviewed the accused. The accused denied banding cutlery to Lowther. Accused was taken to Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike’s office. A few minutes later accused and Bickerdike came back, and Bickerdike said accused had admitted responsibility and wished to make a statement. Accused in that statement said he had parcelled cutlery for Haszard, but denied any dealings with Lowther. He had at first thought Haszard was getting material for a client of the firm, but later became suspicious, refused to parcel any more stuff, and left the D.I.C. at the first opportunity, to get away from Haszard. At one stage accused had tackled Haszard about the goods. Haszard had given accused £3, saying that that was his share of the proceeds. Accused had realised then, his statement said, that he had been a party to a theft. Questions by Counsel Mr Gresson: You should not take a statement after you have decided to charge a man? Witness: I took this because Cook wanted to give it. Mr Gresson; Did you warn him that he was under no obligation to do so? Witness: I did not. Witness added, to further questioning, that he supposed he should have warned accused. Corroborative evidence was also given by Detective C. P. Burns. Accused in Box Accused, called by Mr Gresson, said that for two years he had been first salesman at the hardware counter at the D.I.C. The hardware and manchester departments were adjoining. Haszard; who worked on the manchester counter, often .assisted at the hardware counter, in the lunch-hours particularly. Towards the end of 1936 Haszard came to witness with a story about a personal client, who had a son operating a caravan in the country districts. Haszard said the man. was

prepared to buy cutlery lines, as well as manchester goods. Witness would set out cutlery lines, such as Haszard’s client wanted, for Haszard to parcel up with goods from the manchester department. Witness understood that Haszard was entering these goods in his own entry-book, as he was entitled to do, to get credit for business he brought to the firm through personal clients. In January, 1937, witness asked Haszard if the entry had gone through the books for these goods for Haszard’s client. Haszard at first tried to evade answering, but finally said they were not entered, and pulled £3 from his pocket, telling witness to “keep his mouth shut.” Haszard asked witness to continue supplying cutlery for his client, but witness refused. Witness paid that £3 back to the D.I.C. by false sales, and took another job, at a higher salary. He had not reported Haszard to the manager. He knew of no organisation in which Haszard was interested, and had first seen Lowther when the two of them were put in the same cell. Witness said he gave Detective-Ser-geant Bickerdike the same account of the affair as he (witness) was giving that day. The detective-sergeant’s evidence that day that witness said he gave the goods to Lowther was untrue. At that time witness thought he was not being charged, but was merely assisting to clear up Haszard’s affairs. He made one statement, which was taken away and. came back with pencil markings on it. Another statement was then taken. His Honour' reminded Mr Gresson that this was entirely new material, on which counsel had not exercised his right of cross-examining the detectives. It was a very grave and serious allegation. • Mr Gresson said that his neglect to ask the detectives about this aspect of the case was quite un intentional. Witness added that, without being charged, he had been put into a cell .and kept there all night. He was charged, next morning in Court. He was not told he was going to bo charged, but his wife was. To Mr Brown, witness said that both Haszard’s and Lowther’s evidence was lies. So was Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike’s. So were the other detectives lying when they said that Bickerdike had said witness wished - to make a statement admitting the offence.

At this stage the hearing was adjourned until this morning.