Accused Found To Be Rogue And Vagabond

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31344, 14 April 1967, Page 7

Accused Found To Be Rogue And Vagabond

Peter Lloyd Machirus, aged 21, a freezing worker (Mr L. M. O’Reilly), was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday of being a rogue and a vagabond in that, being a suspected person, he frequented Ferry road on January 18 with felonious intent. He was remanded in custody by Mr Justice Macarthur until April 19 for sentence. The jury gave its verdict after a retirement of 40 minutes. In his opening address the Crown Prosecutor (Mr C. M. Roper) said the charge of being “deemed a rogue and a vagabond’’ was an antiquated expression but, for all that, a descriptive one. It was aimed at preventing the commission of a crime. He said evidence would be given by the police that Machirus had a reputation for committing crimes of dishonesty. He had been convicted of receiving, burglary and conversion. Mr Roper said the Crown would also show that Machirus frequented a public place, and did so with a dishonest intent. Sergeant Norris Arnold Galbraith said in evidence that at 2.30 a.m. on January 18 he saw two men walking along Ferry road in an area of shops, warehouses and industrial buildings. About two minutes later he saw them again, but walking in the opposite direction on the other side of the street. He said he found Machirus to be one of the men. He was wearing a dark coat, moccasins and gloves, and had a sou’-wester hat tucked in front of his jacket.

When asked what he was doing out at that time of night Machirus said he was out for a walk. He said he had been driving his car and was wearing gloves because it was a cold night. “The night, in fact, was quite warm,” Sergeant Galbraith said. Detective Constable Michael James Keppel produced in

evidence a certified copy of entries in the Magistrate’s Court criminal record book on Machirus’s previous convictions. He said Machirus told him he was looking for his car keys on Ferry road. Mr O’Reilly did not call evidence for the defence. He submitted the Crown had failed to prove the ingredients of the crime of frequenting and felonious intent beyond reasonable doubt. “If he had a felonious intent why didn’t he discard the gloves and the hat when he knew the patrol car would be coming back. There is no evidence of flight “It is very easy to give a dog a bad name when he has a bad record.”

In his address to the jury his Honour said that as a matter of law there was ample evidence on which to convict the accused of the crime.