Supreme Court MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF THEFT OF RINGS

Press, Volume C, Issue 29511, 12 May 1961, Page 10

Supreme Court MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF THEFT OF RINGS

Eric Neville Hill, aged 50, a salesman, was found not guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday of stealing three diamond rings valued at £260. the property of a widow with whom he was living at Timaru on December 9, 1960. Mr Justice Richmond discharged Hill. The jury took 35 minutes to reach its verdict.

I The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) conducted the j case for the Crown. Mr D. ■H. Godfrey appeared for Hill, who pleaded not guilty. On the application of Mr Mahon, his Honour prohibited publication of the widow’s name. Mr Mahon said the accused came to know the widow in Christchurch towards the end of last year. He lived with the widow for some weeks, and on Friday. December 9. he drove her to Timaru in her car. They booked in at the Grosvenor Hotel and the widow took off her three rings while she washed her hands. The widow would say that she left the rings on the dressing table. She later noticed they were missing, and asked the accused if he had seen them. The accused told her he had taken them to a bank for safe keeping. On the following day, the widow would say, she and the accused returned to Christchurch. On the same day the accused and the widow decided to part company, and did so. said Mr Mahon. She would say she asked the accused about her rings, and he replied he would go to Timaru in a rental car on the Monday, December 12. get the rings, and return them to her. Police Interview

I The accused did not return I the rings to the widow. Mr : Mahon said, and she got in touch with the nolice. On [December 16. the accused l was interviewed near Blenheim by Detective E. L. McLachlan, who would say the accused told him he knew where the rings were in Timaru. The accused said he had "knocked them off.” He was arrested and charged with theft. The accused sa”d he had given the rings to a friend in Timaru. On December 21, a man in Timaru who had read about the case in a newspaper, got in touch with the police and told them he had the three rings, said Mr Mahon. This man would say that the accused came to his place of business and asked for the loan of £lO. The accused produced the three rings and left them as security. The accused said that the rings belonged to his wife, from whom he was separated. He departed with the £lO,

leaving the rings as security for the loan. Under the section of the Crimes Act, the offence of theft with which the accused was charged was defined as depriving a person of property without colour of right, and using that property as a pledge or deposit for a loan. The accused had done exactly that. Mr Mahon said.

The widow, in evidence, said the rings were her diamond wedding ring, diamond engagement ring, and diamond cluster dress ring. They were insured for £260. The accused agreed to meet her at Riccarton at 4.30 p.m. on December 12 to give her the rings, but did not keep the appointment. Telegrams were sent and he was threatened with a solicitor's letter, but she did not get the rings back. Cross-examination Cross-examined by Mr Godfrey, the widow said she was living quite openly with the accused and calling herself Mrs Hill for some weeks up to December 10. She was not sure how long it was after she found the rings missing that she asked the accused about them. She was not sure if she had washed her hands in the hotel bedroom or in another room. She agreed that she had signed a cheque for £2O in the name of “Hill” and that she and accused had a joint bank account. She lost a ring in Ashburton in October last. A reward was offered, and a schoolgirl returned the ring, the accused paying, the reward.

Did you give the accused a ring to take to Wellington for repairs?—Yes. I did not give it to him. You have got it back?—No. It is still in Wellington?— Yes.

In November did you give the three rings to the accused to see how much he could get for them at the West End jewellers in Christchurch?—No. He wanted to know how much they were worth.

You did not want to pledge them for a loan?— No. That is not true. I do not need the money.

Were they worth £6o? He told me that, but not as a deposit for a loan. Was a bottle of brandy bought at Hinds on the way to Timaru on December 9?— It was.

Did you have drinks out of it?—Not on the way down. I had a cup of tea. I put it to you that you drank most of the brandy?— I did not.

What were you doing in Timaru?—l was down on Caroline Bay.

Did you take the brandy bottle?—You are suggesting I drank it all, are you?

The witness said that a doctor called at her room in the Timaru hotel on the Friday night, at the ae-! cused’s suggestion. Mr Godfrey: Was it because of your drunken cori-| dition? The witness: It was not. A member of Alcoholic Anonymous called that night?—Yes. at the accused’s invitation.

Was it because of. your drunken condition?—lt was not. What was he there for, then?—The accused invited him.

I put it to you that you might have given authority to the accused to pledge your rings at Timaru?—l did not.' £lO Cheque

John Robert Hurst, a licensed motor vehicle dealer, of Timaru. said the accused called' on him on December 9. He had never seen the accused before. The accused was half-crying and said he had had domestic trouble. The accused said he wanted the loan of £lO. and would pay him back in about a week. The accused had not paid back the £lO. ‘■He then threw the rings on my desk after I had given him a cheque for £lO. He said they would be for security and belonged to his wife. I said he had no need to leave the rings,” the witness said. To Mr Godfrey, the witness said the accused was quite open about who he was. He (the witness) had already agreed to lend him the £lO before the accused produced the rings. Defence Case “It is significant, you may well think, that there was no complaint against the accused by the widow until they had parted after living together so intimately,” the defence counsel said in his address to the jury, having elected to call ho evidence for the defence. He suggested that the widow’s evidence was very vague and unreliable. She admitted that a bottle of brandy was bought and that a doctor and a member of A.A. visited her, but denied she had had much to drink. “I suggest that you may well conclude that the accused had the widow’s authority to pledge her rings," Mr Godfrey said. Summing-np His Honour said the Crown had to satisfy the jury that the widow had given the accused no authority to pledge the rings and that the accused had no bona fide belief, however mistaken, that he had the authority of the widow to pledge them. “You may think it is peculiar that if the accused had the authority, or believed he had it. he did not mention it to the detective when he was interviewed. But that is a matter for you to decide.” his Honour said.