Man Acquitted On Theft Charge

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30882, 15 October 1965, Page 10

Man Acquitted On Theft Charge

A schoolteacher on holiday who gave a lift to two strangers outside a Manchester street hotel on the evening of August 23, and later went to a party with them, claimed in the Supreme Court yesterday that a man at the party had stolen his wallet, containing a cheque for £42 6s and £l5 in cash, and taken his cigarette lighter from him.

He was giving evidence against Allan William Brand, aged 31, a kitchenhand, who stood trial before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury on a charge of theft of the articles, valued in total at £6O 16s.

Defended by Mr R. L. Kerr, Brand pleaded not guilty—and after a retirement of 50 minutes the jury found in his favour, and he was discharged.

The Crown’s case was conducted by Mr N. W. Williamson.

Went To Party The complainant, Colin Kennelly, a high-school teacher, described how he had gone with the two men to a party at a flat at 360 Lincoln road. There were three women and a man already there, that man being the accused, Brand. At one stage, said Kennelly, he went off in his car to buy more liquor, but he didn’t really know where to go to do this, and was also involved in a slight collision with another car. He returned to the flat empty-handed, and as he was somewhat intoxicated he lay down on a bed and fell asleep. When he eventually woke up, the accused Brand approached him and asked for the return of £2 which Brand said he had gi ven him earlier to pay for the beer, which he had failed to get. When he disputed this, said Kennelly, Brand pulled him off the bed, tripped him to the floor, and took his wallet from his shirt pocket.

“I decided I had better get away from the house, and go to the police, and for this reason I asked for a glass of milk from the kitchen, so as to get near the back door,” said Kennelly. Loss Of Lighter While i!n the kitchen, he said, he took his lighter out to light a cigarette, whereupon Brand said: “That’s a mee lighter,” and took it from him.

Mr Williamson: Did you make any attempt to recover your property? Kennelly: No.

Mr Williamson: Why not? Kennelly: There were three other men in the house, and I felt that if I made such an attempt I would come off second best.

Kennelly said he then left the houaa, and after check-

ing its exact location drove straight to the Central Police Station.

The second Crown witness, Barbara Carol Lewis, a wardsrnaid, said she formerly lived at 360 Lincoln road and was there on the night of August 23. She said she saw Brand at one stage, take money out of a wallet, and then throw the wallet in the fire. She also said Brand had a cigarette lighter which, he said he had got off Richard (Kennelly.) Police Evidence Detective B. I. Murray, described going to 360 Lincoln road soon after midnight and interviewing Brand, during which time Kennelly’s cheque fell from his person while Brand was adjusting his clothes. Brand had said he had had an argument with Kennelly and might have shaken him about a bit by his shirt. Mr Kerr called Brand to give evidence on his own defence. His account was that he had given Kennelly £2 to buy the beer, and had subsequently asked for It back. Kennelly had said: “What £2?"

Brand said he had then got a bit wild, and had grabbed Kennelly, who had subsequently given him back two £1 notes from his shirt pocket. “I never saw him with a wallet all evening,” Brand said. “I didn’t know he had a wallet.”

The lighter, said Brand, had been handed back to Kennelly, but he had left it behind on the sideboard, apparently forgetting it. He denied saying he had taken it.

Brand also denied throwing a wallet on the fire. The only wallet he had was his own wallet. He said Miss Lewis was mistaken in her account of him throwing a wallet in the fire. Denial By Accused. Cross-examined about the cheque falling from his person, Brand denied this. He said the cheque must have been lying on the floor, and he must have kicked it up with his feet. Asked to explain how the cheque might be on the floor at that exact spot. Brand said it was a coincidence. In his address to the jury, Mr Kerr submitted that Brand’s evidence before the Court was the same as his explanation to Detective Murray on the night of August 23, and was the correct one of the events that night. Kennelly, on his own admission, was affected by liquor, and his recollections could be at fault. The Crown, said Mr Kerr, had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.