THREE CHARGES OF RECEIVING

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26187, 10 August 1950, Page 2

THREE CHARGES OF RECEIVING

VERDICT OF GUILTY MERCY RECOMMENDED ON TWO COUNTS After a retirement of an hour a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Ronald Thomas Richard Lisle, aged 45, a labourer and cafe proprietor, guilty on each of three counts of receiving stolen property. The jury added a strong recommendation to mercy to their verdicts on two counts. , . Mr Justice Northcroft said it would be helpful if the jury gave him their reasons for the recommendations. The foreman of the jury said they were all of the opinion that Lisle was guilty on the first count, in the sense that it was deliberate, and that in the other two instances he could have been under pressure from Harpur, the man who had stolen the goods. Lisle was remanded for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor (Sir Arthur Donnelly) appeared for the Crown, and Mr E. B. E. Taylor for Lisle. The charges, to which Lisle pleaded not guilty, were that on May 7 he received one carpet square, one roll of carpet, four floor rugs, and one quilt, of a total value of £67; on May 13 he received four pressure cookers, two electric irons, and one food mixer, of a total value of £37; and on May 14 he received 15 bolts of suiting materials, of a total value of £1200; in each case knowing them to have been 'dishonestly obtained when he received them.

Sir Arthur Donnelly told the jury that the case for the Crown was that Lisle was a receiver of stolen goods in a big way from a burglar in a big waV. Lisle was the proprietor of the well-known Mrs Huck's Cafe, and was said to have received the goods from the thief, a man named Harpur, who was at present serving a sentence for the thefts. When Lisle was asked by the police about his relations with Harpur he gave a lying explanation, orally and in writing. Harpur was to give evidence against Lisle, but his evidence required corroboration, because he was the thief and a dishonest man. But there was plenty of corroboration here, in the finding of the goods in an empty flat in Elgin street, and in a bach at Birdling’s Flat, the former the property of Lisle’s wife, and the bach the property of Lisle. Harpur’s story was corroborated by Lisle’s brother-in-law, a man named Turnbull. The jury would have to ask themselves how could there be any honest explanation for Lisle having all these goods in his possession. He must have known they were stolen property.

Evidence for Prosecution William Edward Taylor, assistant-mana-ger of the Scott Furnishing Company, Ltd., identified the carpets and quilt, produced in Court,, as those stolen from the company’s premises. Their approximate value was £67. Theodore Edgar Turner, managing director of Hi-Speed House, identified the pressure cookers, electric irons, and food mixer, as those stolen from the shop. Their approximate value was £37. George Foster, a partner in the firm of A. E. Gledhdll and Company, Ltd., said that 15 bolts of suiting materials, valued at £l2OO, were stolen from the company’s premises. They were thA materials produced in Court.

John Merritt Harpur, who gave his occupation as salesman,.said Hie had pleaded guilty to the theft of all the goods produced in Court, and was serving a sentence for the theft. He said that Lisle knew on each occasion that he was stealing the goods; that Lisle’s car had been used to take away the goods; that on two occasions Lisle had returned to the premises after Harpur had put the goods in .he car, and Lisle drove the car away. The goods stolen from the Scott Furnishing Company were taken by Lisle in payment of a debt owed by Harpur. and Harpur was to be paid the balance. To Mr Taylor, Harpur said Lisle told him he could use the carpets himself, and witness said he would let him have them. He had sold the carpets to Lisle. Witness admitted that he had a number of convictions for theft—more than he wished he had.

Hector Francis Turnbull, a cutter, said h £ a brother-in-law of Lisle and resided at 24 Elgin street, a property owned by Mrs Lisle. It was in two flats and one was empty in May. On May 14 Harpur arrived in Lisle’s car and bolts of material were put in the empty flat. Lisle was there at the time. Witness suggested that no more should be brought lu *1 might be “hot.” He suggested that it be taken to Lisle’s bach at Birdung’s Flat, and he and Harpur went there in Lisle’s car. Harpur stored the material m the bach.

Detective-Sergeant R. S. Smith gave evioence on the recovery of the stolen goods from 24 Elgin street and the bach at Birdling’s Flat. Lisle said he had lent his car to a customer, he only knew as Jack, to go to St. Joseph’s Home to see his two children. After the recovery of the goods, Lisle said he had been trapped, that the stuff should never have been there and that he had been the mug. Detective E. A. Stevens and Constable L. W. Jackson gave supporting evidence That concluded the case for the Crown and no evidence was called for the defence.

Counsel for Defence Mr Taylor, addressing the jury, sak that most of the evidence was that o Harpur and should be regarded as un reliable and dangerous to accept unles corroborated in material respects. Some o Harpur’s accounts of his escapades wer< fantastic, and it was difficult to give then credence. If Lisle did aqcept the good of the Scott Furnishing Company in settlement of a debt, there was no offence if he did not know at the time that they were solen. There was no evidence that Lisle had carried any of the materials into the flat in Elgin street, nor had he gone to the bach at Birdling’s Flat. Lisle took no steps to do anything w h the materials between the time they were placed there and the time the police began their inquiries three days later. His Honour summed up and the jury retired at 4.10 p.m., returning at 5.10 p.m. with their verdicts. PLEA CHANGED Mervyn Lewis Keats, aged 22, a van driver, who had previously pleaded not guilty, changed hfs plea to guilty when he appeared on a charge that, on May 19, being the driver of a motor and an accident having occurred involving injury to Dorothy Margaret Bain, he failed to stop and ascertain whether he had injured her and render her all practicable assistance. Keats, for whom Mr B. McClelland appeared, was remanded for sentence. He was allowed bail in his own recognisance of £5O and one surety of £5O. VERDICTS OF NOT GUILTY After a retirement of half an hour, a jury found James Alexander Stephen, aged 52, a machinist, pot guilty on a charge of indecently assaulting a girl aged The Crown Prosecutor (Sir Arthur Donnelly) appeared for the Crown. Mr E. M. Hay, instructed by Mr R. A. Young, appeared for Stephen, who pleaded not guilty to the charge. Arthur Hawkins, aged 50, a moulder, pleaded not guilty to a charge of indecently assaulting a girl aged 11. Sir Arthur Donnelly appeared for the Crown, and Mr E. S. Bowie, instructed by Mr R. A. Young, appeared for Hawkins

The jury, after a retirement of 45 minutes, returned with a verdict of not guilty and Hawkins was discharged.