Man acquitted of receiving

Press, 14 October 1976, Page 6

Man acquitted of receiving

A jury in the Supreme Court last evening found Robert Charles Purdy, aged 41, unemployed, not guilty on three charges of receiving stolen property. Mr Justice Roper discharged him. The accused had pleaded not guilty to three charges of receiving men’s clothing, valued at $395, the property of Millers, Ltd; a stereophonic record-player, valued at $l5O, the property of Silas Gordon McAllister; and a television set valued at $195, the property of Dominion Television Services, Ltd, when he knew that the property had been dishonestly obtained. ,

Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown, and D. J. Maze for the accused. Opening the case, Mr Williamson said that evidence would be given that when Detective Constable P. G. Gilroy searched the Inter Island Hotel, a quantity of new men’s clothing with price tickets still attached was found in a room which had been allocated to a barman named Garry Dawson, who had lent the key of the room to the accused.

The accused had told Mr Dawson that he was using the room to store clothing. Dawson and the accused went about hotels selling the clothing. Dawson had since been convicted of receiving. The clothing was the property of Millers but the

firm did not know when it was stolen. When questioned by Detective R. Powell about the clothing, the accused said that he had nothing to say.

Evidence would be given bv Detective J. A. Borlaie that the accused had been convicted of receiving in December, 1974.

The record-player was found in Mr Dawson’s room. Mr Dawson said that he had bought it for $BO from the accused, who told the police that he had never seen it before. It had been stolen in May.

The television set was found in the room occupied bv Mr Dawson and Christine Mary Carr, a cook at the hotel. Miss Carr would say that she bought the set from the accused for $lOO It had been stolen from a house in Hutchison Street. In his final address to the jury, Mr Maze submitted that the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses, who were accomplices, was not to be believed. The prosecution had failed to prove that the men’s clothing had been stolen from Millers.

The record-player and the I television set had not been positively identified. Then was no satisfactory evidence that the accused had exercised any control over the stolen goods. The Crown had failed to prove its case on all three counts, Mr Maze said.