Supreme Court Licensee Acquitted On Receiving Charge

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29748, 15 February 1962, Page 10

Supreme Court Licensee Acquitted On Receiving Charge

The licensee of the Saxon Hotel, Lyttelton. Leslie i Arthur Hanke, aged 37, was found not guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday of receiving a quan- : tity of drapery and other materials valued at £55 Is 8d on or about December 29 last. Mr Justice Richmond dis- , charged the accused. The ijury took three hours and a half to reach its verdict. The goods had been stolen from a drapery shop owned by Douglas James Ralph May at 101 Estuary road, New Brighton, on the night of December 28.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the receiving charge. - He was represented by Mr P. G. S. Penlington. Mr C M. Roper appeared for the Crown.

Outlining the Crown evidence. Mr Roper said clothing and materials valued at £lBO were stolen from Mr May’s shop. Police made inquiries and visited the accused at his hotel on January 4. The accused said he had done a stupid thing; that he nad bought materials and garments from a man for £5 thinking they had come off the ships. He said he had an idea when he bought them that they were “hot” because of the price the man asked.

Goods valued at £55 were found in a locked storeroom and in the accused’s quarters at the hotel, said Mr Roper. All would be positively identified by the shopkeeper as having been stolen from his shop, or as being similar to stock which was stolen.

The accused co-operated with the police and identified a man who would be charged with breaking and entering the shop, Mr Roper said.

In a statement produced by Detective E. T. Mitten, the accused said the man from whom he bought the goods entered the hotel bar and said he was broke and had some wool to sell. He returned with a suitcase of wool and other items, for which he asked £5

“Although I had a feeling the goods had come off a

ship I also had a feeling they were hot because of the low price,” the accused’s statement said. He said he wanted the wool for his wife to knit up for him. Mr Roper, in his final address, asked the jury to take into account the* accused’s state of mind at the time in purchasing the goods at less than a tenth of the wholesale price. He submitted that the accused could not have thought that the goods had been smuggled in a ship, as nearly all bore New Zealand brand names. Defence Submissions

No evidence was called for the defence.

Mr Penlington submitted that the accused had become caught up in a web of most unfortunate circumstances He had acted stupidly but not criminally. Mr Penlington said it was not contested that the goods were stolen, or that the accused physically received them. The vital question was whether the accused knew the goods had been stolen at the time he received them.

The port of Lyttelton at the time was full, with 19 ships in the harbour, said Mr Penlington. It was likely that the accused’s bar was full, and that he took a quick look at the goods which the man produced, saw that they were a bargain and would be useful for himself and his family. He paid for them without making a proper inspection. The accused thought he was buying the goods from a seaman, and there was no indication on the articles where they had come from, Mr Penlington said. The purchase was made in haste, and with a thought for a bargain. The accused had no knowledge at the time that the goods were stolen.