ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 43, 19 August 1908, Page 2

ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.

SUPREME COURT CASE. William Edmund Mackie, a middleaged man, was charged at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon with committing, on the 17th May, assault and robbery on the person of Sameul Juliffe, and stealing a gold watch. A further charge was preferred of obtaining from one James Hogan, on the 18th May, the sum of £5 by means of false pretences, with intent to defraud. The prisoner, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. Toogood. Mr. Myers stated that on the 7th May Mr. Samuel Juliffe, a farmer, of 1 Johnsonville, came to Wellington, wearing a very valuable gold watch. lie 1 became more or less under the influence of liquor. Near the Pier Hotel he was struck over the head and felled to tho ground. When he recovered, the watch was gone. There was no direct evidence who assaulted Mr. Juliffe and robbed him. On the following day, the Bth May, the watch was in the possession of the prisoner. The onus was on that person to show hoy« he came into possession of the property. At the Hotel Cecil the prisoner, on the Bth May, produced the watch, and offered it to the barman, James Hogan, who bought it for £5. The false pretence was in telling Mr. Hogan that he got the. watch as a presentation from a relation in England. Mackie signed the receipt as William Sam. Mackie. On the 11th June Detective Cassells came across the prisoner, and asked him where he got the watch. Mackie said he bought it in a hotel. In a written statement he declared he had bought the watch on the wharf from a steward named Wall, who had since gone to England by tho Mamari. As a matter of fact, said Mr. Mjers, the Mamari sailed for England on the 24th April, a fortnight beforo the time alleged. Samuel Juliffe, farmer, Johnsonville, said he spent the 7th May in Wellington. He had had a few drinks, and in the evening, between 5 and 6 o'clock, coming out of the Pier Hotel, he was struck down and robbed. He could not see his assailant. To Mr. Toogood : The blow came from the front. James Hogan, barman at the Hotel Cecil, gave evidence of the sale of the watch to him by the accused. Detective Cassella said that while investigating the assault and robbery of Mr. Juliffe, he spoke to the accused on board the steamship Putiki. The prisoner afterwards made a statement in tho detective office. He said therein that ho had bought the watch from a man named Wall. George Cliff Crawford, clerk in the employ of Levin and Co., agents for tho Shaw, Savill and Albion Company, stated that the Mamari left for London on the 24th April. This concluded the case for the prosecution. The accused, William Edmund Mackie, described himself as a ship's cook. He had got the watch from a man named Wall down against the Glasgow wharf on Friday morning the Btb May. Flo had never seen Wall since. Wall was waiting outside, while tho witness offered the watch to Hogan. On the 7th May he saw the Wairarapa "train off about 4 o'clock in. the afternoon. He went back to the house and had a. deep. Waking at 7 o'clock, the witness went out and had euppor. Hogan had suggested he should puti "Sam" in the receipt for the watch instead of "E." To Mr.. Myers : He had never told Detective Cassellij he had sold the watch in tho Pier Hotel. He had been in NewZealand since January of this year. He had been seafaring round the Southern Seas for about two years, ffe had been in Darlinghurst. gaol, Sydney, for nine months for thefts of clothing on the high seas. Mr. Toogood submitted that the accused had established a complete alibi. Mr. Myers addressed the .jury on the various points involved. His Honour (summed up the case, pointing out the inconsistencies of the prisoner's statements. His Honour stated it would not be safe to convict on the major charge. The jury retired at 5.30, and returned at 5.55, with a verdict that tho prisoner was guilty of receiving stolen property and of false pretence. His Honour, in passing sentence, declared that he did not think that the prisoner committed the assault and robbery, but the prisoner knew that the property had been dishonestly obtained, and had himself obtained money upon it by means of false pretences. The prisoner would be sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.