Supreme Court Accused Found Guilty On Housebreaking Charge

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28897, 18 May 1959, Page 12

Supreme Court Accused Found Guilty On Housebreaking Charge

Evidence that accused had tried to bargain his way out of a charge of arson was given by detectives when the trial of William Charles Kidd, on charges of housebreaking and theft, was continued in the Supreme Court on Saturday before Mr‘Justice Haggitt and a jury. Kidd was charged with breaking into a house in Marine parade, New Brighton, shortly before it caught fire, and stealing liquor and clothing to the value of £34. He claimed he had been drinking heavily and came to at home to find himself in possession of the goods. After deliberating for nearly an hour, the jury found Kidd guilty on the housebreaking charge. No verdict was returned on an alternative charge of stealing the goods. Kidd was remanded in custody for sentence on Friday. He was represented by Mr B. J. Drake. Detective Constable D. C. Lee said accused had told him he was worried about the damage to the complainants’ house and did not want to be charged with arson. He asked whether he would be charged with arson if he admitted breaking and entering the house. Kidd told the detectives he would admit housebreaking, although he cpuld remember nothing about it, as long as the arson charge was dropped. . He suggested that the witness type out a statement and he would sign it, but the detectives told him they wanted only the truth. When questioned about the suitcase accused had taken the detectives into the garden at his home where the stolen goods were found buried, said Constable Lee. This evidence was corroborated by Detective Sergeant W. E. Hollinshead. In his final address to the jury, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) said two persons had seen a man, who was later identified as the accused, entering the premises. Kidd had entered the house through one of the two windows left open by the painters and apparently left by the front door. He had taken the suitcase home and buried it in the garden. For the defence of drunkenness to succeed, the jury had to be satisfied that accused was so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming any criminal intent. “I suggest his condition was nothing like as bad as that,” Mr Mahon said. .The best that could be said in Kidd’s favour was that he had been drinking heavily. Accused had been able to go from room to room apparently selecting articles he wanted and discarding others. He had then been able to carry the suitcase, which must have been heavy, about a quarter of a mile to his home. “I don’t suggest you will have to consider the second count at all, but you may well conclude that the charge was amply established by Kidd’s statement to the police.” Mr Drake, who called no evidence, said it was clear that the complainants had lost certain articles and that they were found in the accused’s possession. Obviously he could not deny that he had something to do with taking the goods. The jury should disregard the damage done to the house by the

fire as the accused was not charged with arson. The t»ct that he was not charged with arson could indicate that he wu not believed to have been capable of forming the intention to start a fire. Liquor could sometimes induce a condition akin to insanity, said counsel. It was submitted that Kidd was so by drink that he was not capable of forming the intention of taking the articles so as to deprive the owners of their property for all time. "And that is what constitutes theft.” This contention was supported by the evidence of three of the four witnesses who had seen him near the house. The police had “kidded the accused along” until he finally came out with a statement and was then told that if he said anything more it would be used in evidence, said Mr Drake. • His Honour said the jury was entitled to acquit accused on the housebreaking charge if it was satisfied that he was too drunk to know what he was doing at the time. But the jury must consider all the evidence and the actions of accused. He could not see how the jury could possibly acquit Kidd on the theft charge if he was acquitted on the housebreaking charge.