A CURIOUS CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 115, 7 February 1908, Page 5

A CURIOUS CASE.

; '"THOUGHT: HE'"HEARD HEAVY, . MUFFLED FOOTSTEPS:-" (OX IBI.EOBirn—SPECIAL COtinESPONUKTr.) - ■ ■ Auckland, February 6. > A curious case was heard before Mr. G. 0. Kettle. .S.M., yesterday, in which a"; welldressed -young, man,/ John. William ' Insley, was charged with and entering tho residence of John . Muriro with intent to commit a crime. Mr. Sharpies appeared for the defence. " Chief-Detective .'Marsack, for. the prosecution, stated that evidence would be adduced to show that on .the'day. in question accused was seen to come'out , of the houso. : Mrs.: Munroy wife of the complainant, said that when going home on the day of the alleged, offence she saw accused go into a neighbour's grounds. When she reached her own home she, wont round to the back of the ■ house,; her .sister remaining at tho front: Accused''came: out ;> of the front door, and her sister called out. She went: round, to, the front;-and accused explained that he thought he'.heard.a ..Burglar, in' the -h'ouso, and; - to'investigate,, when the front door slammed on' hih'i. She had no reason to disbelievo accused's statement. ; He had called at tho house on" his business as an insurauce agent-.' ■ " She " did - not - think lie would sfeal.- :She made:a' careful search, on going into - the; house, and found nothing missing; .Accused .ealled to see her husband that ; 'evening.'■•' ■' ' .',- :A'sister," of . the -previous, .witness gave evidence .generally corroborative; but, -m addition, --stated . that accused " had. asked her sister :to look through the: place, and'ottered to' turn out his "pockets. '. So far as she could seo :: there.vwas;:':nbthirig wrong in the place. Hollis gav.e evidence as to arresting/accused. . 1 •- ■Two' other witnesses gavp evidence •. for the prosecution, o'nei stating, that he saw a man entering the house by . a; back window. ; ?.Mr.' ; .Shirpfc'submitted 1 that, thero;was no eVidenco. of intent', ahd : that-the ca'se'should be dismissed.^'/''::v V"'v •Mr. 1 ., Kettle ,said he,.would dike to hear ,an explanation from accused.' ■ ~ """' ■ Accused' gave-, evidence to the ' effect': that on tho day in 'question- he called 1 at the house," and knocked at - the ..' door several times. ; .The: front door, was ; partly," open, and he thought he heard heavy muffled footstepi inside. Ho had read a good deal in tKo papers about' the burglaries : being committed'_ at i that time, and,-as his business took him from, house ■to house, ifc had got on his mind that ho run across some burglars. ; He , pleaded that his charactor was good; and hoped for the sake of his children that His Worship would see there had been a mistake made. .. Mr. Kettle said lie did ;not intend to send the case to tho Supreme Court. There was no "evidence of intent to commit -a crime. It was quite . possible that accused's statements weretrue. On . tho evidence as it stood no jury would convict. Under critical examination, circumstances which .appeared suspicious were often explained. Tho information would be dismissed.