CRIMINAL CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 253, 22 July 1936, Page 11

CRIMINAL CHARGES

Supreme Court Cases

WELLINGTON SESSION A verdict of guilty 9 on the three counts was returned yesterday by a jury in the Supreme Court in Wellington when George Edward Allen, labourer, aged 38, and Martin Carr, labourer, aged 34, were charged with assault with intent to rob, assault causing bodily harm and common assault, the charges arising out of incidents in a lane off Ghuznee Street on the night of April 18, when an elderly man was attacked.

The acting-Chief Justice (Sir John Reed) heard the case, in which the prosecution was conducted by Mr. C. Evans-Scott. The Crown case was heard on Monday.

Mr. J. Meltzer, for the defence, attacked the reliability of the evidence for the prosecution, contending that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The jury could well consider whether there had not been a complete failure to show that the two men charged were the two men who committed the assault. His Honour said the whole case resolved itself into whether the jury was satisfied with the evidence of identification of the two men as the persons who committed the assault. The evidence of identification depended on two witnesses, and the question the jury had to consider was whether they could be mistaken or had invented their story. The jury was out for half an hour before returning a verdict of guilty. Prisoners were remanded for sentence. Theft in Hotel. A verdict of guilty was returned against John William Graves, who pleaded not guilty to stealing £l/15/in money and a wallet and pocketknife, the property of J. A. Kelly, at the Columbia Hotel on May 28. The Crown case was that accused entered the room of a fellow boarder and took the wallet containing the money and the pocket-knife, the property being recovered later in the room occupied by accused, who was identified by the rightful owner as the man who entered the room the morning the property disappeared. Accused conducted his own defence, which was a denial of the allegations. He gave evidence and also addressed the jury, saying that he was being hounded by the police, every opportunity being taken to “make things as black as possible” for him. The police had persecuted him for months, and their object seemed to be to “get a man down and keep him down.” He asserted that a constable who gave evidence was “a good liar” and was “swearing his life away,” till warned that he could not use such language by the judge. His Honour said the case seemed perfectly clear to him, and the jury took only a quarter of an hour to reach a verdict. Prisoner was remanded for sentence.

Missing Wireless Sets.

The hearing was begun and will be resumed to-day of two charges against Edward Devereaux, barman, aged 28, for whom Mr. R. Hardie Boys ap peared, the charges being stealing two wireless sets, or receiving two stolen wireless sets, the property of Philips Lamps Ltd., Wellington, on or about December 16, 1935. Mr. C. Evans-Scott explained that the charges were part of a series arising out of thefts of wireless- sets from the premises between November 30 and January 3. It appeared that the premises were entered three times at least by means of a skeleton key and 16 wireless sets were removed. A man who had pleaded guilty to three charges of entering the premises would say that accused was with him on two occasions, and that two sets were taken on the first occasion and four on the second, accused taking two away in a taxi. Evidence would also be called to show that accused knew of the shed in which several stolen sets were kept and sought possession of the key from another man so that he could enter the shed. The evidence for the prosecution was still being heard when the court adjourned till to-day. A Plea Reversed. Auguste John Barberel, charged with forging an order for £3/5/- on the New Zealand Mortgage Corporation, pleaded guilty and was remanded for sentence. He pleaded not guilty to this and alternative charges in Jhe Magistrate’s Court, but when- advised by the judge that signing another person’s name to a document was forgery irrespective of whether the signature was an exact copy of the genuine one, pleaded guilty, and the other charges were withdrawn by the Crown.