BREAKING AND ENTERING

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27733, 10 August 1955, Page 9

BREAKING AND ENTERING

MAN FOUND GUILTY ON FOUR CHARGES Norman Lemon, aged 23, a labourer, was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on four charges of breaking and entering and one charge of having in his possession without lawful excuse a housebreaking instrument, a screwdriver. Mr Justice Adams remanded Lemon in custody for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown) appeared for the Crown, and Mr B. J. Drake for Lemon. The five charges to which Lemon pleaded not guilty were that on June 6 he broke and entered the premises of Argyle Textiles, 4 Rope street, and committed theft; that he broke and entered the premises of Canterbury Distributors, Ltd., 4 Rope street, with intent to commit a crime; that he broke and entered the premises of Doors: andzjßfouldings, Ltd., 2 Rope , s^C^-wi a cri aflrar lie broWeOmd .entered the premises of Fort Kttbber Stores, Ltd., 10 Rope street; and that he was found in possession of by night without lawful excuse an instrument of housebreaking, a screwdriver. The Crown case was opened on Monday and was completed yesterday by the evidence of Albert William Rex Ball, a detective, and Erian Charles Russell Mallabar, a constable. When the Crown case ended, Mr Drake said he would not call any evidence but Lemon wanted to make an unsworn statement from the dock. Lemon said that while he was spending a fortnight in Wellington he had the use of a bicycle and he used the screwdriver, mentioned in the case, to turn down the handlebars. At that time he was wearing the overcoat referred to in the case, and he put the screwdriver in a pocket of that coat and forgot about it. He had another coat, a gaberdine one, and had worn it since then. On the Sunday, June 5. he had been to a party and was wearing the coat mentioned in the case. He had not thought about the screwdriver in the pocket until he was arrested by Detective Ball. .Mr Drake, addressing the jury, said that each of the five charges must be proved separately and if they did not feel satisfied that Lemon committed any one of these crimes their verdict on that charge must be not guilty. Evidence had been given that a screwdriver was missing from the premises of Argyle Textiles. It had not been proved that the screwdriver found in the possession of Lemon was the one missing from Argyle Textiles, for the witnesses could not identify it. It was quite clear that the other three premises had been broken into, but before they could convict Lemon they had to be sure that he not only broke into the premises but that he broke into them with intent to commit a C 7?L G ' Nothir ig was missing from any of these three premises and there was nothing m the evidence which clearly established that Lemon was in any wav connected with these offences. His Honour summed up and the _ re ti re <i at 12.10 p.m., returning at 1.5 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on each of the five charges.