NIGHT AFFAIR IN QUIN STREET.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 899, 19 August 1910, Page 3

NIGHT AFFAIR IN QUIN STREET.

POLICE CLUES AND QUEST. THE JUEY UNABLE TO AGREE. Groceries figured prominently in a ease heard ltefori;, his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday, when Thomas Joseph Lloyd stood his trial on a chargo of breaking and entering the warehouse of E. H. Crease and Son, Ltd., in Quin Street, on August 7, and stealing a. quantity of groceries and an overcoat. Mr. Wru.. Cox was appointed foreman of the jury empanelled. Mr. H. H. Ostler was Crown Prosecutor, and accused was defended by Mr. 11. F. O'Leary. Tho story told by the prosecution was that Constable. M'Neil,' passing the premises of ..Crease and Co. on the morning of August 7, at about a quarter to four o'clock, found a window open, and heard sounds of movement inside the building. Going away quietly, he returned with. Constable Callery. They'found a man standing in the shade of the building, whom they arrested. Constable Callery, making a tour of inspection, found another man at the other " side of the building. Both were left in charge of Constable M'Neil, while his comrade entered the building. After a.space of about seven, minutes tho tivo men, rushed M'Neil. There was a scuffle, in which lie fell, down. Getting up he gave chase, but he was encumbered by a heavy coat, and the men got away .in the . darkness. Coining back, the constable picked up a hat which had presumably been dropped by one of the escapees. Evidence to this effect was-led by tire two constables.

'.• Pred.TVm. Vare, secretary to Crease and Company, deposed that he left theprernises all in order on Saturday, August B. On the following day, at 8.30, visiting the premises with ■ Detective Lewis, he found various tokens that the place; had been ransacked. In the:public office a typewriter had been damaged, and in the private. office a .roll-top desk had been broken and a lire lit on the . linoleum with private documents by way of fuel. Rebecca Crease, jvife of Fred. Charles Crease, identified an overcoat produced as the property of her husband;. .

Detective Lewis said that on tho afternoon of. the day of the robbery lie accompanied Constables'Callcry and M'Neil to a bedroom at the back of the Albion boardinghouse, in Dixon Street, whoro thpy found accused in his' bed.-. Beneath the mattress, a boltie of ketchup bearing, the brand ,of the. firm robbed,, was discovered. Accused remarked that, he had notjsecn it before. In his portmanteau. witness found another significant article, a thimble marked "Golden Bee Jam." . Also in.tho room was the overcoat (that identified by Mrs. Crease). The only bat in the room claimed by Recused was old and in a dusty condition. It looked as if it. had'not beenworn for it week. Accused, however, admitted' having been out on the previous day—'a day of continuous rain. This hat and tho one.found by tho. constable were each of the size Itnown as 7}. In the room of a boarder named Shelley, close by; that of accused; were found two bottles of pickles and ono of sauce, bearing the brand of Crease, and Son.- ''•■.'-.- :

Alfred Thomas Skelley, labourer, residing at tho Albion 'Boardinghou.se, said that on the ■■morning of August '7 ""ho found two bottles of pickles and a bottle of' sauce iii a closet adjoining his rooni and that-of accused.

' Mr. O'Leary (fpr' tho' defence) did not call evidence, but traversed the Crown case, : especially regarding identification; He stated,'inter., alia, that the chances of a mistake in identification were'increased by; the' fact that the men captured by. the constables were seen by- the latter before. daylight on a; winter 'morning: Further, .it was possiblo and not unlikely that a young constable, only a week out from the training ..depot, would-be over anxious to retrieve his error in allowing the. fruits of .his first capture to elude him. This, might .make him keener to "identify"'the first suspect arrested as the man. Again, they had. the/ fact that a young constable in perfect condition: ■was unable to overtake the men who ran away':''' Ac'c'u'sod, however, was" a thickset man—he had been shot; through the leg in South Africa, as was; admitted by Detective Lewis,, who, had seen the wound. If "he. had been the man. in 'question the constable : would.' cdsily. have overtaken him. The goods .supplied nothing .in the shapo- of ■ proof.;.. They could have been obtained anywhere. It was'unreasonable to suppose that accused if he had.been guilty of. the..burglary wonld have'.regained in his ■ possession the article produced 1 in evidence. ■•',,.

The jury, after a, long retirement, returned to ..Court at 7.55 p.m. 1 , and: their foreman reported that they had failed to-agree, and that thero was not the 'slightest • prospect of their being able to do so.. ■'■ ■ :

! His Honour . discharged the jury, .and granted, a . formal application by. ' the Crown Prosecutor for. a new trial to bo taken, next'week. ._......

On the; application of his" lawyer, prisoner was granted bail.

"THIS POOR OLD WOMAN."

HER''FONDNESS FOB PUBS. : Catherine Moore was charged '-with a series ot shop-lifting exploits. • It was alleged that on June 1H she had.stolen from the D.1.C.-a'sealskin muff, oh June 21 a'pair of binoculars, a collar-bag, sil- • ver-mounted purse, and a handbag, the property of Wm'. Ed. Holliday, and- on June. 18 a fur, the property •of Charles Adams and Co. ' Accused was defended by Sir. T. M. Wilford. , -Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted for the Crown/ . Gertrude Harbroe, in'charge of the fui room at the D.1.C., gave evidence as to finding in the possession, of accused a sealskin muff which- had been missed from the room.. . ' ' ' Questioned by. Mr.'Wilford as to the means by which she'identified the muff, witness instanced the size, shape, and shortness of the fur, but admitted under examination that she, was uncertain in regard to each one of these particulars. Alfred Arthur Corrigan, manager of the D.1.C., said that when;- in company with Detective Bailey, ha confronted accused in> his room on June 27, she. admitted taking the muff, inquired as. to its price, and offered to pay for it if she were not prosecuted. ■ - ' Mr. Wilford: Did she say: "Don't give me in charge, I will get you back your muff."—"Yes." .

Mr. Wilford u Did she say "your muff." —"Oh, she admitted having stolen - it." , Mr. Wilford: Will you tell the jury, whether you havo chaDged. the words of the-evidence, that, you gave .in the Magistrate's Court?—"l,have not consciously made any alteration, it may he a word more, or a word-less", - Mr. Wilford: I am only putting it to you that your memory is like a sieve. —"I will swear positively that her statement in my office was'that she had taken the muff, and that she would return it."

Mr. "Wilford: You have said that she used those words, and now you want to toll' the jury that she did not.

After some further passages between witness and counsel, Mr. Wilford proceeded : You ■ said • to-day that accused eaid, "I will pay for it." Did you mention that .in. the Court below?—"I do uot recollect." 1 ;

;. In the course of your lengthy statement in the, Afagistrate's Court, you. never once said that''she said she would pay for the muff.—"l am a bit surprised that I did not mention it then."

Don't you think that curious.—"No, I don't think it at all curious."-

W. E. Holliday identified the binocu : lars produced as being similar to a lot of six. pairs he hud specially imported. A handbag, purse, and other articles produced answered the description 1 of some that, had been abstracted from his stock. . . .

To Mr. Wilford, witness admitted that he had never . seen , accused in his shop. Charles Adams said the fur produced was exactly similar to one that bad been in his stock. -

Detective Abbott deposed to finding the goods produced in the room occupied by. accused. Detective Bailey had told ,him in the presenco of accused that she had admitted having stolen a muff from the D.I.C. Thjs was confirmed at the time by accused.

"Mr. Wilford did not call evidence for the defence, but commented on the Crown evidence. '.Ho stated that neither Mr. Adams nor Mr. Holliday cou'jd swear that the goods shown had evet been in their possession. The explanation tendered by his client was that sho bought these articles in another country, and

why should they i\ot believe U? Hiss Harbroo was out as a private detective, and as she was a young lady of exceptional ability ho did not suppose that a woman passed her with a, sealskin muff, but she followed her up tlio street. She had told his learned friend that she know quite well it was the muff, but crossexamination had shown that her belief rested, on. imagination only. As to the binoculars, why had not his learned friend or the detective in charge of the case brought Mr. Holliday's assistants to say they had not sold these glasses.-Last of all they bad the statements given by this foreigner, this poor old woman, (o the detectives. lie did not fay that any threats had been used, but upon a statement of that kind by a foreigner they should have a statement by an interpreter. The jury, after an absence of twenty minutes, found accused guilty of stealing tho muff and of receiving the binoculars. His Honour intimated that the prisoner would be brought up for sentence on Saturday morning. . ■ DONG HON. . GUILTY. OF COMMON ASSAULT. Hearing of the case in which a Chinaman, Dong Hon, Was charged with criminal assault was continued yesterday! Mr. W. Pern" appeared for the accused and Mr. H. H. Ostler on bohalf .of the Crown. The jury retired at 11.45 a.m., and at three o'clock returned to -Court, having found , the. accused guilty of common assault. His Honour imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment. ;