VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25249, 30 July 1947, Page 3

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

ACCUSED CONDUCTS OWN DEFENCE

CHARGE OF BREAKING AND ENTERING AND THEFT An explanation of how he obtained a coat was given to the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday by John Albert Arthur, aged 28, a painter, who pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaking and entering a shop <?nd stealing an overcoat valued at £l4 10S. He also pleaded not guilty to receiving an overcoat knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr A. T. Donnelly appeared for the Crown. The accused was not represented by counsel.

Frederick George Leslie Clarke, a tailor, said that on December 10, 1946, he locked his premises. When he arrived at his shop the following morning he found someone had broken into it. He missed 23 suit lengths, an overcoat, and a suit. He recovered the suit lengths two days later at the back of a section. The overcoat produced was the one stolen from his shop. He always put a tag on the inside of his coat, but the tag had been torn off the coat shown in Court. Detective R. S. Smith said that on June 14 he was in the accused’s home. He saw the overcoat there and asked accused if it was his. Accused replied that it was his, he had had it for 18 months and had bought it at an auction together with other goods. Accused had no receipt for the coat. On June 18, accused handed witness a receipt dated November 13, 1946, signed by “Henderson.” The receipt was written on the back of part of a letter which was dated December 10, 1946. Witness Questioned

In reply to questions by Arthur, witness said the coat was quite openly displayed in Arthur’s room, and there was no attempt to hide it. Accused seemed agitated when witness questioned him about the overcoat, but witness would not agree that this was because accused had just wakened up. It was true that accused said he got a receipt when he bought the coat, but did not have it when interviewed. It was also true that accused denied knowing anything about the breaking. entering and theft. Acting-Detective E. C. B. Rundle corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness.

Arthur said he did not wish to give evidence but he wished to address the jury. He said he did not buy the coat from the auction mart but from a man in the mart. He thought he was getting the coat fairly cheaply, but not too cheaply, at £6 10s. Since he had bought the coat he had worn it all over Christchurch. It was a big blow to him when the detectives told him it was a stolen coat. The receipt was dated November 13. 1946, but ne bought the coat just before Christmas. Accused said it was easy enough to make a mistaken when writing a date. He did not know whether the man who sold him the coat wrote the receipt that way to put accused off or to put other people off. Mr Justice Fleming said it was a hard thing to commit the perfect crime. Here was a stupid and obvious mistake. An old letter was chosen for the receipt. The letter was. dated December 10, 1946, yet the receipt was dated November 13, 1946. It might be possible that someone else stole the coat and accused came into possession of it in some other way. The jury, after a retirement of two hours, returned a verdict of not guilty on each count, and accused was discharged.