Supreme Court Jorgensen Found Guilty On Receiving Charge

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28822, 17 February 1959, Page 16

Supreme Court Jorgensen Found Guilty On Receiving Charge

Ronald John Jorgensen, aged 28, a spray painter, was found guilty by a Supreme Court Jury yesterday on a charge of receiving 104 bottles of Scotch whisky valued at £5O. He was remanded in custody by Mr Justice Adams for sentence. Lionel Frederick Timmings, aged 28, who was charged Jointly with Jorgensen with either stealing the whisky from an overseas ship at Lyttelton, or receiving it knowing it to . have been stolen, was acquitted on both counts. The Crown evidence was that the twe accused, accompanied by a young woman, had taken the whisky to Picton in a car and had sold it there to a hotel keeper for £195. Jorgensen, in evidence, had claimed that he had obtained the whisky from Terrance Francis Mora (a Crown witness) on whose behalf he had sold it.

Mr C. M. Roper prosecuted for the Crown; Mr R. S. D. Twyneham appeared for Jorgensen and Mr G. S. Brockett for Timmings. Jorgensen’s offer of a plea of guilty on the receiving charge, which the Crown had rejected, should, not prejudice him in any way, said Mr Twyneham in his final address.

The evidence on both charges was identical and centred-around the accused’s possession of the whisky stolen from the Imperial Star. But it was most important to consider. from where the whisky was before it was taken to Picton. Both Timmings and the young woman had said that the whisky was not picked up at ■ Jorgensen’s premises, and had described a place' near the racecourse-which could have been Mora’s premises in Wrights road, said counsel. “I Submit that it. was quite clear that Mora had possession of the whisky;’-’ he added. This tied up with Jorgensen s evidence that he had received his instructions from Mora. ■’Remarkable” Evidence The evidence of Dalliessi, the hotelkeeper who had bought the whisky from Jorgensen, was “remarkable,” Mr Twyneham said. Tn a telephone conversation with

an anonymous person he had apparently agreed to buy an unspecified quantity of whisky and at a time when it was in short supply. He had offered well above the standard price and this at a time when hotelkeepers were complaining of going bank-

rupt. Dalliessi had also bought the whisky on a Sunday evening which was an unusual time to take delivery of liquor, said counsel. "I submit that Mora was the owner, Dalliessi was the purchaser and Jorgensen the agent.” Mr Brockett told the jury that if the explanation made by Timmings could be true he should not be convicted. “In my view there is really no evidence to connect Timmings with the theft of this whisky,” said counsel. The date of the alleged receiving had been amended to October 12 and the jury had to consider Timmings’ actions on that date. There was nothing in the accused’s actions before or on that date to suggest that he knew he was doing anything wrong. At the time of the alleged offence Timmings had only recently met Jorgensen: he was about to go into business with him and was out to please. It was doubtful if he would have taken Miss Orange on the trip if he thought they were doing anything wrong. If during the drive to Picton Timmings had become suspicious of what was going on it was then too late for him to do anything about it and he was committed to carrying on. Probably the worst that could be said about Timmings was that he had been a fool and had been used, Mr Brockett said. Crown’s Submissions Mr Roper reminded the jury Of j Mora’s evidence that Jorgensen had borrowed his car . one night in September, and that a few days ‘later Jorgensen had Offered the witness a glass of whisky saying that it came- from Lyttelton on the night he had borrowed the car. If the evidence of Mora was accepted Jorgensen was in Lyttelton on the night the whisky was stolen from the ship. Jorgensen was in possession of the whisky a few days after it was taken from the ship and again two weeks later when It was hawked about the country. The jury was entitled to infer that he was either the thief or receiver. In regard to the receiving charge there was no doubt that Jorgensen knew he, was dealing in stolen goods, Mr Roper said. He submitted that the jury should regard the case against Timmings as more one of receiving than theft. He had aided Jorgensen in the disposal of the whisky and it was difficult to see that Timmings could not have known what he was doing. Jorgensen’s counsel had suggested that Mora was the real criminal, but although Mora was recalled to give further evidence he had not been cross-examined, Mr Roper added. Summing up, his Honour told the jury that there were no grounds in the evidence for convicting Timmings on the receiving count. In view of Jorgensen’s allegations of complicity on the part of Mora the jury should consider whether Mora should be regarded as an accomplice. If the jury fpund that he was an accomplice of the accused his evidence should not be accepted without corroboration, but in any case his evidence should be approached with some caution. It was possible for an accused person to turn round and accuse an innocent person and it was equally possible for a witness to give false evidence, said his Honour.