Supreme Court Soldier Found Guilty Of Theft From Farm House

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29389, 16 December 1960, Page 23

Supreme Court Soldier Found Guilty Of Theft From Farm House

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Howard Winston Ingram, aged 39, a soldier, guilty on a charge of breaking and entering the house of Robert Angus Reid, a farmer, at Lincoln, on September 18 last and stealing about £l9O, the property of Grace Annie Reid, and £1 2s 6a. the property of Rosina Mavis Reid. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Ingram in custody for sentence on Tuesday at 10 a.m. The jury took two hours 15 minutes to return its verdict. Mr C. M. Roper conducted the case for the-Crown. Mr G:- S. Brockett appeared for Ingram. When the trial resumed, Ingram gave evidence as outlined in Mr Brockett’s opening. Cross-examined by Mr Roper, Ingram said he did taxi-driving in his spare time. He had never done a trip to Tai Tapu in the taxi. He had never had a “country job” in the taxi. He said he had won money (about £100) at the New Brighton races to buy the Ford 10 h.p. on September 14, with a deposit of £57. He had placed the bets at the course and had never told anybody he had made the bets at the T.A.B. “Little Green Cars” Mr Roper: It would have been your little green car that was seen parked in Hudson road? Ingram’ It could have been. Would have been? —No, could have been. Did you see any other little green cars in Hudson road?— No. Then it must have been your little green car?—Yes. You heard the evidence that a man ran down the road? —It was not me. I only crossed the road. And that the man ran down the road, got into the little green can and drove off? —I might have driven off about that time. Did you see a car pass?—l was down in the ditch. I saw the top of a car pass. Did a man then run down the road, looking like you, wearing a green jacket like yours, climb into your little green car and drive it away?—No.

Asked why he told the farmer, Moir, that, he had been to Akaroa when he had been to Tai Tapu, Ingram said he thought he was on the Akaroa road. He prided himself on his sense of direction and did not want Moir to know he was lost. Addresses The jury might think the witnesses for the prosecution came from a typical New Zealand farming community, said Mr Brockett in his address for the defence. “I venture to suggest that you might also think that these witnesses are united in their desire to help the Reids who have lost their money after saving up £l9O over a long period,” counsel submitted. Suspicion was not enough to prove a man guilty, and counsel submitted, it was very easy for witnesses to reconstruct events, quite honestly, to suit suspicions when looking back on happenings. Ingram in evidence had given his explanation of how he came to be in Hudsons road that evening, and had not, counsel submitted, been shaken in crossexamination. “There is not one shred of evidence to show Ingram entered the Reids’ house let alone stole the money. I submit strongly that you cannot convict on such a thin case for the prosecution and be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that such conviction would not be doing Ingram an injustice,” Mr Brockett concluded.

Mr Roper submitted that if what Ingram said in evidence was true there must have been two green cars in Hudson road, two men with green jackets and both of them with bald patches. Ingram had admitted it was his car seen in Hudson road and that he had been there. He told the police that he had not got out of the car and had thrown his golf scorecard out of the window. When it was pointed out the pieces were found together in a heap he made no answer. In Court, he told a different story and said he had got out of the car.