20th APPEARANCE IN THEFT CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 189, 9 May 1935, Page 11

20th APPEARANCE IN THEFT CHARGE

Detailed Allegations NEW PHASE IN ATTEMPT AT EXTRADITION On about their twentieth appearance in court in Wellington since they arrived from Australia and the first attempts were made to extradite them several months ago, William Campbell and Made Munro faced Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court yesterday and heard once more the familiar charge of stealing in Sydney share scrip worth £375 read against them. The day was made notable, however, by the fact that for the first time the circumstances of the alleged theft were detailed from information brought by a Sydney detective. From the detective’s files, Mr. C. Evans-Scott, for the police, outlined the methods by which the two accused had allegedly stolen the scrip. It had been done, he said, by means of a trick. Madge Munro had twice absconded on bail from the Sydney police, on the second occasion in company with Campbell to New Zealand. In Sydney she had escaped a charge of conspiracy to defraud by producing a marriage certificate and maintaining that a wife and husband could not conspire.

Case Not Near End.

The case has still apparently some distance to go before a decision on even the question of extradition is reached, as yesterday counsel for the accused (Mr. O. H. Arndt) advanced several more legal objections. Among them was an allegation by him that in the preparation of the depositions brought from Sydney as evidence a fundamental rule of justice had been ignored in that accused’s counsel had not been, allowed to cross-examine the deponents. Mr Luxford promised to look into the objections. The hearing will be continued on Saturday.

The police allegations were concerned with a date as far back as July 25,1933, said Mr. Evans-Scott. On that da’v, he said, Campbell called on Miss Julia Boutell at her house in Darlingburst, Svdney, said his name was Byron, and told her how he had been since the war a chartered accountant employed by the Australian Glass Manufacturers’ Co.. Ltd. Campbell s explanation in obtaining possession or Miss Boutell’s share scrip was that the company was forming a syndicate and it desired to borrow her scrip for temporary use. He made it quite clear to her that it would be returned within about two months. Also he told her she would receive additional shares in the syndicate.

Sale io Sharebroker.

Miss Boutell signed I'™ share transfer forms, Mr. Evans-Scott continued. On the following clay Madge Munro called on Mr. L. E. Palmer, of the sharebroking firm of Joseph Palmer and Son, Sydney. She asked him if he could sell some Australian Glass shares. He said he could at the price of 49/b. She gave her name as Miss M. Harden and instructed him to sell 146 6^“F CS ; That’was the’number owned by MissBoutell. On the same day Campbell called again on Miss Boutell, and after some discussion he wrote out an authority to her solicitor, a Mr. Reid, to obtain delivery of scrip to the bearer, which she signed. In return he gave her a formal receipt. “The important part about that is that in the receipt the shares were described as beiug worth 49/6 each,” Mr. Evans-Scott commented. On that day, also, Madge Munro visited the solicitor and handed the authorisation to him. She gave him her receipt, signed in the name of L. Braund. On July 27 she took the scrip, together with the share transfers signed by Miss Boutell. to the sharebroker. The amount received under the scale was approximately £356. Madge Munro returned £lO5 of this to the sharebroker to purchase a Comihonwealtn Bond-for her. The balance she deposited in her bank account on the same day. It was known that on the day alter the money had been banked both accused went to a motor-car company and paid £lOO on a. car worth £355. In the document of the sale they called themselves Codemore and Mary Codemore, his sister. , DeLays in Sydney. On August 12. 1933, Madge Munro attempted to dispose of her Commonwealth bond, and that led to her being questioned and eventually arrested. She was identified by photograph by the solicitor, the sharebroker and the salesman who sold the car, and Campbell, when arrested, was identified in a similar way by Miss Boutell, the sales--man, and the secretary of the motor-car company. The proceedings against the two were delayed in Australia for some time, Mr. Evans-Scott concluded. The New South Wales authorities considered it advisable to charge them together, and it was some time before Campbell could be traced. Eventually be was arrested in Victoria in August, 1934. The file containing (be depositions made in the Central Police Court, Sydney, on April 17 was produced in court by Detective J. E. Findlay, who was connected with tho case in Australia and came to Wellington from the Criminal Investigation Branch, Sydney, recently to rearrest the accused. Madge Munro, he- said, absconded from bail in Sydney, and later was rearrested and acquitted at the Sydney quarter sessions in 1934 after the marriage certificate had been produced. With Campbell, who by this time had been traced to Victoria, she was arrested again and remanded on February 14 last on bail from which they absconded to New Zealand. “Seems Extraordinary.”

Commenting on Mr. Arndt’s complaint that the Sydney magistrate had not allowed accused’s counsel there to cross-examine the deponents, Mr. Luxford said: “It does seem remarkable that counsel was not given an opportunity of testing the evidence; it seems extraordinary that that right, which, I understand, is fundamental, was denied to him. . . . The depositions will be accepted provisionally for the sake of convenience.”