Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JURY DISAGREES

Theft of Wireless Sets Alleged LONG RETIREMENT After a retirement of 41 hours a jury failed to reach agreement in a case concluded in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday in which Edward Devereux was charged with breaking and entering the warehouse of Philips Lamps (N.Z.), Ltd., at the corner of Wakefield and Blair Streets, and stealing two wireless sets. There was an alternative charge of receiving the sets knowing them to have been obtained dishonestly. Mr. Justice Blair was on the bench. On the application of the Crown prosecutor a new trial was granted, to be heard at the next criminal sittings of the court. The Crown prosecutor, Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. R. Hardie Boys appeared for accused. No evidence was called for the defence. In his address to the jury, Mr. Boys said that the Crown evidence set out to show that two sets had been taken, but all the evidence pointed to accused having stolen more than two, if the Crown witnesses were to be .believed. Counsel reviewed the facts as submitted by the Crown. “What a pot-pourri of unsatisfactory witnesses,” he added. “Three of the witnesses, I submit, have lied, two have conspired to fabricate the evidence, and two others have given evidence to save themselves, and are unreliable.” The Crown’s duty in criminal cases was to establish by its witnesses and evidence that accused was guilty; that evidence should be cogent, uncontradictory, and reliable. Counsel traversed the evidence produced by the Crown, submitting that it was inconsistent and contradictory. The jury should not be asked to rumage round among a mass of unreliable evidence jn search of a few shreds of truth. c When the jury returned at 4.45 p.m. the foreman told his Honour that it was hopeless to expect an agreement. The two counsel agreed to let the retrial stand over until the next session as one of the witnesses was now at sea. Accused was released on bail on his own cognisance until to-morrow, so that arrangements could be made for the renewal of a surety. His Honour intimated that when that he'would renew bail on the same terms as befoie, a condition being that accused must report to the detective office at Wellington each week.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19360514.2.167

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 194, 14 May 1936, Page 16

Word Count
384

JURY DISAGREES Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 194, 14 May 1936, Page 16

JURY DISAGREES Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 194, 14 May 1936, Page 16

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert