Supreme Court NOT GUILTY VERDICT

Press, Volume C, Issue 29436, 11 February 1961, Page 4

Supreme Court NOT GUILTY VERDICT

Theft Charge

Neville Mayo, aged 28, a workman, was found not guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday, on a charge of theft by fraudulently applying £9 for purposes other than directed by Michael Cyril Woods, on or about August 4, 1959. Mr C. J. O’H. Toblin appeared for Mayo. Mr Justice Richmond discharged Mayo. The jury took 15 minutes to reach its verdict.

Opening the case for the Crown, Mr P. T. Mahon said that in July, 1959, Woods was in Christchurch staying at the New Railway Hotel. When he left the hotel. Woods had no money to pay for the £9 board he owed. He left his suitcase at the hotel and arranged with Mayo, whom he had met. to pay the £2 owing. Woods was going to a job at Mount Cook and the arrangement was that Woods was to send the £9 to Mayo and Mayo was to pay it to the proprietor of the hotel. Mayo stood as guarantor that Wood’s account would be paid to the proprietor. Registered Letter

Woods would say that after he had been at the Hermitage, Mount Cook, working on the staff, he sent £9 in a registered letter to Mayo, c/p The Chief Post Office. Christchurch.

“Mayo picked up the letter containing the money at the post office and apparently put the money in his own pocket. Seen by the police later, Mayo said he had taken the money for himself. Mayo said Woods had owed him money for board and he was entitled to the first £9. Mayo was to send him a second £9 for the board at the hotel.” Mr Mahon said. He said that Woods denied that he had owed Mayo any money. If the jury believed Woods’s story, then Mayo should be convicted. If the jury had a reasonable doubt about Woods’s story, then Mayo should be acquitted. Woods gave evidence along these lines. He said that Mayo bad twice telephoned the Hermitage after he (witness) had sent the £9. asking to borrow £lO on each of the two occasions.

Cross-examined by Mr Tobin, Woods admitted staying at Mayo's home for two or three days ofter leaving the hotel with his bill unpaid He denied staying there 10 ; days. He said he did discuss paying board to Mayo but Mayo refused the offer. He denied discussing the question of board with Mrs Mayo Mr Tobin; If Mrs Mayo said you did discuss paying board, what would you say? Woods: That would be a lie. If it was said you went to dances with the Mayos and borrowed money for cigarettes and dances, what would you say to that?—lt would be a pack of lies. You borrowed a shirt, tie and jersey from Mayo without asking him?—Yes. but I told him afterwards. You just took them?—Yes.

I put it to you. that Mayo was ringing you at Mount Cook to ask you to return the money you owed him?—l did not and do not owe him money at all. Defence Evidence

In opening the defence, Mr Tob»n said the real issue in the case was whether Woods owed Mayo money. If Woods did owe Mayo money, then Mayo was entitled to use it to satisfy Woods’s debt to himself before he paid the hotel. Evidence would be called from Mrs Mayo that Woods asked her if £4 10s a and money borrowed The arrangement was that Woods should send money from Mount Cook for debts to the Mayo’s and for the hotel account.

Audrey Jeanette Mayo, wife of the accused, said Woods stayed nearly a fortnight at their home. Her husband and Woods brought up the question of board and Woods asked her if £4 10s a week would be all right. She said £3 would be enough. When Woods left she noticed that one of her husband's pullovers, a new one, a shirt and a tie were missing. “I was present on three occasions when Michael Woods borrowed money from my husband. I cannot say how much it was—it was to get into dances. Woods said he would send money down when he had his first pay." witness said.

To Mr Mahon, witness said no definite sum had been arranged for Woods to send down.