Supreme Court ROBBERY AND THEFT CHARGES FAIL

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30056, 14 February 1963, Page 3

Supreme Court ROBBERY AND THEFT CHARGES FAIL

Brian Carrington, aged 34, a metal polisher (Mr J. G. Rutherford), was found not guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday of robbing James Richards, aged 63, of £3O and a wallet and papers, valued at £1 ss, on October 23. The jury also found him not guilty on an alternative count of theft of the money, wallet, and papers. Mr Justice Wilson discharged the accused. Mr N. W. Williamson, for the Crown, said that Richards would say in evidence that on October 23 he collected £BO- - from the T.A.8., deposited £4O at the Excelsior Hotel, and had some drinks with the accused at that hotel and in the kitchen at the Manchester Boardinghouse.

Richards would say that when he went to the convenience in the backyard of the boarding-house the accused followed him, struck him twice on the head, and grabbed the wallet and made off. Richards would say that he was positive that it was the accused who hit him and took his wallet. Further evidence would be given by witnesses who saw the accused drinking with Richards, by a witness who saw Richards after he had been in the convenience, and by a witness who found Richards's wallet. Detective B. J. Preston would give evidence of meeting the accused on November 16 and saying that he was making inquiries about a robbery at the Manchester Boarding-house. He would say that the accused replied: “You’ve got the wrong man. I know nothing about it.” The accused refused to go to the police station for questioning, and when informed that he was under arrest on a charge of robbery, became violent. Richards, cross-examined by Mr Rutherford, said that he had not had many drinks of beer before his wallet was taken. He would have had six to nine beers. On a previous occasion, while staying at the Manchester Board-ing-house, he lost £l5. The money went from his wallet; he did not know how. Defence Case

Opening the defence case, Mr Rutherford said that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses was very confused. Richards’s evidence was the most confused and his memory of what occurred could not be relied on. The accused would say that he noticed Richards had left a parcel in the hotel bar. and, knowing the condition Richards was in, went to the boarding house to tell him he had left his parcel in the hotel. He had a drink with Richards in the kitchen, but left the kitchen first and left the boarding house by himself.

The proprietor of the boarding house, Robert Cole, would give evidence that he saw two of his staff and Richards and the accused drinking in the kitchen and ordered them all out. Cole would say that the accused left first, by himself. Cole, in evidence, said that Richards told him, after returning from the lavatory that afternoon, that he bad been struck by someone and robbed. “I asked him who had done it, and he said he did not know the man who had done it as he had not seen him,” Cole said. Accused’s Evidence

The accused said in evidence that Richards told him when they first met that day that he had had a suitcase full of clothes and some money stolen from him at the boarding-house. Richards

was not drinking fast, because he could not drink any more.

The accused denied touching Richards or taking his money or wallet. One of the detectives, he said, had jumped on .his back when he was arrested, and that had led to the scuffle.

Recalled by the Crown, Detective Preston denied that he had jumped on the accused’s back at any time during his arrest. DetectiveConstable White did not jump on his back, either. His Honour, granting Mr Williamson’s application to recall the detective, said that defence counsel had failed to cross-examine the detectives on this point during their evidence-in-chief. Defence counsel had also failed to cross-examine Richards on the point of speaking to Cole and telling Cole that he had been robbed by a man he did not know.

“You omitted to crossexamine the prosecution witnesses on these points: that is something undesirable and may be detrimental to your case,” his Honour said. He said that defence counsel had also omitted to crossexamine Richards on the evidence given by the accused that Richards had told the accused that he had had a suitcase of clothing stolen. Mr Rutherford said that he had not known what evidence Cole was going to give, as he had not met him until the lunch adjournment of the Court.