INSUFFICIENT PROOF

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 218, 11 June 1930, Page 12

INSUFFICIENT PROOF

EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION A CHARGE DISMISSED Because the evidence relative to the identification of accused was “somewhat insufficient,” Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday, dismissed a charge against Thomas Robson, labourer, aged 3S (Mr. Sievwright) of stealing a rug valued at £2/2/-, the property of James Hugh Cameron. Cameron said that he had come to Wellington from Masterton on March 17 and had parked his motor-car in Grey Street. He was absent for a while, and when he returned the rug had disappeared. David ’Flett, a newspaper runner, aged 13, said that when on his round he saw a man being put out of the Pier Hotel. The man took a rug from a car which was parked near the hotel and wiped his mouth on it His mouth was bleeding. “He shut the door when he saw I was looking, winked at me, and walked away, taking the rug with him,” witness added. To Mr. Sievwright, witness said the man he saw seemed to be older than accused. Philip Dee, a clerk employed by the Wellington City Council, said he was walking along Grey Street on March 17 when he saw a man standing by a motor-car near the Pier Hotel. After he had passed he heard the door of the car opened and closed. He turned round and saw the man with a rug over his arm. The man turned away and it occurred to witness that he was not the owner of the car. - “Are you positive that this is the man?” asked counsel. Witness replied that, although he had no difficulty in identifying accused at an identification parade, there wa» a doubt in his mind as to whether he was the same man he saw on Marcn Constable Hollis said he knew accused well. At 5.55 p.m. on March 17, following on a complaint that a rug had be n stolen, he instituted a search. At 6.44 he visited the conveniences at the corner of Featherston Street and Lambton Quay, where he recovered the ru g from the caretaker. Accused was there at the time and had blood on his face. Counsel: Did he have the rug in his possession when you saw him? Witness: No. Detective-Sergeant Holmes said that the caretaker of the conveniences was at present in England. The police had no further evidence to offer. Mr Sievwright submitted that the evidence was such that the court was not justified in taking the matter any further. He contended there was no prima facie ease to answer. “I think the evidence of identification is somewhat insufficient,” said the magistrate. “No doubt the police are handicapped by the absence of the other witness, but as the case stands it just falls short of reasonable proof. Accused will be given the benefit of the doubt. REMANDS GRANTED A remand until June 18 was granted in the case of Joseph Newton, seaman, aged 27, and Jack Hawes, fireman, aged 21, who were jointly charged with attempting to break and enter the shop of Cecil Leamy at the corner of' Willeston Street and Victoria Street, with intent to commit a crime. i Arthur Hugh Griffiths, labourer, aged 49, who was charged with being £74/15/in arrears on a maintenance order in re;spect of his wife, was remanded to appear at Christchurch to-day.