THEFT OF SEED

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25178, 8 May 1947, Page 3

THEFT OF SEED

VERDICT OF GUILTY SUPREME COURT HEARING “Cresting in that it 11the eieme hts Of chance which SShf committing offence to be said w - Brown, Crown Prosecutor, in the Supreme Court yesterday, when William Davey, a painter, aged fiiiri W^ C ™ rge u . with the thef * at Leith--1947 ’ of one “ d nf rTa J ed clover and one sack or rye and white clover seed of a total JalJiX ! Of T? 67 Ws ’ the P r °Perty of William Janies* The case was heard before Mr Ji'-nins. Mr D. J. Hewitt appeared for Davey. a ?, Jarmer ' had stored the seed in ™ h? house near the Main North road, Property . near Leithfleld. Mr / aid ’ had seen it there on a ??. the following morning it twn 52 ne " I^ ad 11 not been for one or aneePdlt n f^J a^ penin i? s the Person who a™™u ly J°° k xt mi ght never have been PnS£ h u°F March 4 - Constable S?*?’ Amberley, had been driving North road and his attention had been attracted by an empty the at . the side of the road near in wh A ch James kept his hP 1 ! car was distinctive; being red mudguards and no hood. The ° n Constable Poole reof - tf ? e and immediately connected it with the car he had seen. ChriSSJ. a u des oriptton of the car to J;hri Stchurch and another constable who had been in Harper street seen a car which anAscription. He had returned -wper street and had seen the car, h ad seed all over the back seat. ‘I h A d been interviewed, and had admitted the car was his. He was told about the seed in the back of the car and had admitted he had stolen it. He had been ? s^ ed b X detectives where the seed was, ana be had taken them to where he said had put it. Eventually he had said he could not tell them where the seed was because it was with a lot of other ato J goods, including tyres and wheels, dld not want them to be found. William James, a farmer, of Leithfleld, gave evidence of having noticed the seed ftad ® one > and having seen two heaps of road outside the building in which it had been stored. To Mr Hewitt, witness said he had not heard the results of the tests made on samples of his seeds, but agreed that 11 the seed was dead it was valueless. To Mr Brown, witness said he valued th ® red . clover seed at £6O at the time. • To his Honour, witness stated that he h?d planted some of the seed and had obtained a fairly good strike. Frederick Thomas Poole, a police constable, gave evidence on the lines indicated by Mr Brown. He had examined a motor-car at the police station on March 12, and had identified it positively as the on rS he bad seen on tbe road on March 4. To Mr Hewitt, witness said he had driven past at about 15 miles an hour. The night had been dark but clear. He had not noticed the registration number.

Police Evidence John Boyd Gott, a police constable, gave evidnece of having seen a car in Harper street answering the description issued later, and of having returned to the car from which he had taken samples. Lawrence Dudley Harrowfield, a detective, said he had interviewed accused, who had at first denied he had been in the district when the theft had taken place. Witness had then told accused of the seed in the back of the car and he had then admitted the theft. He had gone with witness and Detective Stewart to a hut near the Ashley river, where he had stated he had put the seed. When they had arrived there accused had said that it was not there and had then mentioned the stolen goods he did not want the police to find. Samples of the seed had been taken by James and, with others from the car, had been sent to the seed testing station at Palmerston North. To Mr Hewitt, witness said accused had come to the police* station at his invitation. The car was broken down at present.

Mr Hewitt: Would It be true to say that accused had been detained from 4.30 p.m. till nearly midnight? Witness: It was only until 10.30, and that was caused by accused taking us on a wild goose chase to Ashley. Accused made no request to see a solicitor. Mr Hewitt: Is it your policy to get written statements? Witness: I ask them if they wish to make one. Accused did not want to make a statement.

Murray Ross Stewart, a detective, gave corroborative evidence.

Grace Darling Moore, laboratory superintendent at the seed testing station at Palmerston North, gave evidence of having tested samples of seed forwarded by the police. She described a series of tests she had carried out on the samples, and stated that the results of all the tests showed without doubt that the seeds came from the same lot.

To Mr Hewitt, witness said that both lines held a very high percentage of dead seed, which was of no Value. The red clover would be of little value. The ryegrass had a germination of more than 60 per cent., which was not bad. To Mr Brown, witness said that the red clover, which had 20 per cent, germination, would be of some value.

Mr Brown: If a gentleman entered a shed by night would he not have some difficulty in deciding if any particular seed had a high germination? Would he not have to apply certain laboratory tests? Yes.

Counsel’s Address Addressing the jury, Mr Hewitt said that it had been proved by an expert witness that the seed was valueless, and the jury must consider Section 238 of the Crimes Act, 1908, which said that anything growing out of the ground under the value of Is was not capable of being stolen. Constable Poole had been bold enough to say that the car he had seen in Christchurch was the same car he had seen on the road some days earlier. He had simply driven past in the dark and had not got out to look, and his assumption was unreasonable. He would suggest that the car was so ramshackle that it could not get to Amberley. There was a weakness in the Crown’s case in the fact that the statements allegedly made by accused were not in writing, and a further weakness in that the police had not recovered the seed. Someone else might have used the car—conversions were frequent. The witness Moore had established that much of the red clover seed was dead and no good. Her evidence made the case very trivial. If the case had been heard in a lower Court the Magistrate had powers to dismiss it if it had been found trivial. He would suggest that the case had been brought to the Supreme Court in error. The subject of the theft was of little, if any, value and the case should have been heard in. a lower Court.

Mr Brown asked his Honour that the jury be directed concerning certain aspects of Mr Hewitt’s address. The remarks Mr Hewitt had made concerning Section 238 of the Crimes Act were sheer nonsense. He would say advisedly that Mr Hewitt knew that, and most improperly made those submissions to the jury.- The fact that the case had been brought to the Supreme Court was dtie entirely to Mr Hewitt, who had appeared for accused in the Magistrate’s Court and had elected to take trial by jury. His Honour: I had intended to put the same things before the jury as Mr Brown has asked me to do, in slightly different words. I think counsel’s opening remarks were about as relevant as flowers that grow in the spring. Summing up, his Honour said that the witness Moore had no doubt that the seeds taken as samples from the shed were identical with those taken from the car. The value of the goods stolen did not affect the theft. Mr Hewitt had discounted the idea of Constable Poole having seen the car at night, but Poole, an observant man, had seen enough to circulate a description which had enabled Constable Gott to go immediately to the car in Harper street. It was pleasing to know that the police were so observant, and both Constable Poole and Constable Gott-were to be congratulated on their powers of observation and memory. The jury retired at 3.45 pjn. and returned at 4.35 pjn., with a verdict of guilty. Accused was remanded for sentence.