ALLEGED THEFT OF BICYCLE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27038, 13 May 1953, Page 6

ALLEGED THEFT OF BICYCLE

WOMAN FOUND NOT GUILTY JURY’S VERDICTS AT RETRIAL After a retirement of three hours and SO minutes, a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Ngaio Agnes Carroll, aged 45, a waitress, not guilty on charges that on June 24, 1952, she stole' a bicycle, valued at £26, the property of Lily Mary Stokes and, alternatively, that she received the bicycle well knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr Justice Northcroft discharged the accused. The hearing, begun on Monday and completed yesterday, was a retrial. A different jury failed to reach an agreement when the case was beard last Wednesday and a new trial was ordered. Mr A. W. Brown appeared, for. the Crown, and Mr W. F. Brown for Mrs Carroll, who pleaded not guilty. “No-one saw Mrs Carroll steal the bicycle. When she was accosted by the police she denied stealing it and she again denied the charge here in Court yesterday. The main case for the Crown is that the bicycle was found in Mrs Carroll’s possession, but she has given an explanation for that,” said Mr W. F. Brown, addressing the jury yesterday. Mrs Carroll’s explanation was that she bought it from a man whom she knew as Bernie. She worked from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. in a cafe in Manchester street, near Tuam street, and for some months regularly served this man with breakfast. He mentioned that he was selling his sister's bicycle and the sale was again discussed in a hotel, when Mrs Carroll bought the bicycle. This had been referred to as a well-worn excuse, said counsel, but the accused was entitled to be tried on the evidence heard in Court and it was not quite fair for the Crown to suggest to the jury that this evidence was merely a well-worn excuse. It was true that Mrs Carroll obtained no receipt when she bought the bicycle, but how many times was a receipt obtained in casual transactions of this kind? The Crown had made no effort to trace Mrs Carroll’s movements on the day of the theft, said Mr Brown. The defence, however, had called some evidence to show she had no opportunity that day to steal the bicycle. It was usual for Mrs Carroll to have her lunch at the cafe where she worked and that would be the natural thing for her to do instead of going from near Tuam street to her home in Victoria street. The bicycle was a blue one and was a conspicuous one. II Mrs Carroll had stolen it, would the jury not have expected her to disguise it? Nor would they expect such a bicycle to be ridden openly about the streets if it had been stolen. Yet Mrs Carroll had used the bicycle regularly for months. These were not the actions of a bicycle thief. Rather were they the actions of a woman who knew nothing about business and had omitted to get a receipt when she bought the bicycle. Mrs Carroll had never been in Court before. She was in a position to buy a bicycle. She understood the man was selling his sister’s bicycle and she did not know much about S rices. Counsel submitted that Mrs Carroll had neither stolen nor received the bicycle and it was a case where a mistake had been made. Counsel for Crown Mr.A. W. Brown said that, in the case presented by the Crown, the facts were simple. Mrs Carroll did have in her possession a stolen bicycle. There was no doubt about that. Naturally, that called for an explanation. She had given one and the Jury would have to test it and be satisfied about i|. If they decided it was false they would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that she either stole the bicycle or received it knowing it had been stolen. If, on the other hand they had any reasonable doubt about it they must acquit her. There were some extraordinary features of the case. There was the man who had steak and eggs for breakfast every morning and with whom she was on such friendly terms that she called him Eernie and he called her Ngaio, but the strange part was that she never found out his surname, where he worked, or where he lived. She also drank with him in a hotel, yet he disappeared into the blue as soon as she bought the bicycle. Mrs Carroll also said that this man regularly rode the bicycle to the cafe ana parked it outside. Nobody else saw the blue bicycle there, nor had the police picked it up. Further, none of the others employed at the cafe saw this man Bernie who, Mrs Carroll said, was such a regular customer. Mrs Carroll bought a practically new bicycle at a price far below its real value. Counsel for the defence had said she rode it openly about the streets, but the evidence was that she was not seen riding the bicycle until the end of October or the beginning of December. The bicycle was stolen in June, though Mrs Carroll said she bought it in August. Was it not likely she had kept it hidden during the intervening months? She had another bicycle which she rode at that time. Inquiries were made at the hotel but no-one there had seen the man Bernie. The jury might well think that Mrs Carroll’s story was palpably untrue. His Honour summed up and the jury retired at 10.50 a.m., returning at 3 p.m. with their verdict of not guilty on each charge.