LOST PEARL NECKLACE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 259, 2 August 1928, Page 5

LOST PEARL NECKLACE

THEFT CHARGE THROWN OUT • “CROWN CASE ADMITTEDLY WEAK” Dominion Special Service. Auckland, July 31. In the Supreme Court to-day-Dlr. Justice Blair, addressing the grand jury, said one case which would probably cause the jury some little consideration was that in-Which Dlichael Dlaher was charged with the theft of a pearl necklace which cost about £9OO. Its owner lost it at the Ellerslie races and advertised for it without offering a large reward so as not to disclose its value. Accused admittedly saw- the advertisement and he said he rang up the owner s house and spoke to a maid. The maid denied the ■ conversation he alleged took place. Accused next took the necklace to a jeweller, who told him it was worth over £2OO. It was in his favour that he made it perfectly plain to the jeweller.that he had found the necklace. He apparently did nothing further ■ toward returning the necklace, the reason probably being that he was holding out for a bigger reward. A difficult legal 'situation arose, said His Honour. The finder of lost goods committed theft if he appropriated them to himself and exercised any act of ownership over them. The weakness of the Crown case against Dlaher was that apparently he did' not exercise any overt act of ownership; all he did was to remain passive. He could not be convicted of stealing the necklace unless the Crown established that he intended to deprive its owner of it permanently. Whether the evidence amounted to sufficient proof or whether there was any proof of any intention on' the part of Maher to deprive the owner of the - pearls was for the jury to say. He asked them to consider the ease’carefully. 'lt was one in which the Crown case was admittedly v'eak. The grand jury returned no bill.