A CURIOUS CASE

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 33, 9 February 1920, Page 8

A CURIOUS CASE

CARTERTON RESIDENT .w;^...,. .CHARGED.: „. INTERESTING EVIDENCE A Carterton■• case engaged the atten: tion of His Honour Sir Bassett- Edwards at the continuation of the Supreme Court sitting to-day, Howard Harold Armstrong, a middle-aged man; was charged ■ with breaking and the;shop of May Elizabeth Baillie, at Carterton, on or about 17th October last, and with^ stealing therefrom^ six pairs of men's boots, valued 'at £10 12s 6d. two pain 'of ladfes' "boots,' 'and the"' sum of Ss in cash; also with- breaking and entering, on 18th September, the dwelling-house of May Elizabeth Baillie with intent to com,mit,.a crime; .and. with, .haying the-same shop-oir 18th September, with ■ intent- to .a -criins.-.♦«. i.A fourth charge, of being., a rogue, and. a vagabond, ■ in-that he hid m his-possession- pick-lock 'keys, ATas-also preferred against the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and Sir John Findlay, K.C., and with hinTMr. C. H. Taylor, for the 'prisoner;; Mr; Albert Christensen was foreman of the jury. ■BHE ALLEGED OFFENCES.

■; ...In" outliningLthei case, Mr. 1 Macassey said that the chief witness against the accused was Mrs. May Elizabeth. Baillie, ■who .carried on. a. bootmaker's shop at CaJterton; and who had known Armstrong for> a number of years'and had been on friendly terms with him. Mrs. Baillie had locked up her' shop as usual on the night of 17th October, and on the following morning^had found the front door broken open-and that boots and a small'sum of'money were missing. Oon-■siderable-damage was done, and the mat~ter. was reported to the police,..who decided' that a jemmy had been used in forcing; an _ entrance. In- the inner door was found a skeleton key. The accused, ' who is' a saddler, had complained "to Mrs. ■ Baillie "th^t his place also had been broken into. In regard to the alleged attempt on Mrs. Baillie's house, the accused had been seen on the premises by herself, and he-,had said he was there to play a joke * on. her daughter over a cake which had;been,giv.en the'latter for her birthday. In accused's' possession afterwards had been found a number of keys, which he had 'sai'd;belonged to his own house, and certain skekton keys.

May Elizabeth Baiflie,.a widow, said she had known Armstrong about thirty years. She described the details of the breaking into of-her premises, and how accused had come to her the morning ;SfJfcier;!{Kj>;:ey.^t£'^ idf;saJd!'. itha6.'..His. place ■also'had' been'attempted without success. Latterly the accused and she had not been on as good terms as formerly, because she complained that; he; was. interfering in fier i'aSairs.-^On.'the-night of Ist September she remained in her shop after locking, up to. see what occurred, 'because there had been'complaints that the doors had been.open in the morning. Armstrong • liad'i:-come~':' along* oil" his bicycle, opened the door with his key, and-.-had gone-'in.- No, words-had passed, "and" he' had'gone away," but "next morning witness bad complained to him about it, and he said he had been there to see if she were in. He had promised to de,stroy the'key." He,'had no permission from hereto enter the shop in'this way. Two new Jocks had''been put? on her' doors the afternoon previous to the alleged burglary. She had told Armstrong she intended to put them on, and the latter .had. offered/to purchase and affix; them,- 5 but she had; declined, and some one eke did the job. In regard to the alleged entering of her 'house, witness said that on returning to her house on the evening in question with-her daugh:.. !ier, she .found a'key in the door, and discovered Armstrong inside. He said he was there, to" play a joke in. connection with, a, birthday cake. He. had no permission to enter her house. The'key wasion. the 'outside^of the door. Next day ' Armstrong called and apologised, and broke up the'key before her with a pair of pincers. -

Cross-examined- by ; Siir John Findlay, fitness said that she and accused had Been at school together. He was a friend of her husband, and had frequently visited the house when her husband was alive.: Deceased's mother was living in .Carterton. She did not remember her husband before he died asking Armstrong to help to look after the business with her. Armstrong had helped her with the administration of the estate. After her husband's death, the accused had frequently gone to her shop of an evening and assisted her in several ways. They had been thrown .very,, much , together while, working at,the shop in the'evenings. He had.. gone to' her house f requeritly.on Saturday evenings after leaving the shop, and sometimes he would arrive there first. A'key for the door was .under a brick,-.but he used to wait till she arrived:'' When the daughter arrived -after the pictures they had-supper together.. At ihe time of the accused's divorce, she. had .believed accused was in love with her. He had told her so. His wife had left him, and he had. subsequently obtained a divorce. She knew that untrue suggestions had been made against accused and herself by the former wife of accused during the divorce proceedings'. ' , ' '. She admitted that Armstrong had an idea that some one was cutting him out in her affections, and he wanted to see who it was. ' '■ ',Sir John Findlay : ';,"Has' not Armstrong been one of the best friends you ever had?"—" Yes." " "And now he is charged with a very serious offence?" —"Yes." Witness admitted she knew that Armstrong had had a key'of her: shop, and ■thathe Had-let himself into the shop at . night time'for years, j. '..'' . ... Sir, John J?indlay.,: t'You knew when he came to your shop that night and found you there that he was looking for you?"—" Yes.'' ;"-'■ " ■ . ' "" "He'afterwards''asked your mother if she -knew where ■ you' were ?'•'-—"Yes." "Then he went thero to see you—certainly not your boots?"-—"Yes." "Here is a man charged with burglary who had a key- to your, shop for some time .with, your. knowledge?"—" Yes." , Replying: further.witness said it was a ■fact that accused's affections became stronger for her, but she cooled towards him. She had, however, allowed him to keep 'the key. of the shop.,., . '„: :■' Sir John r'."Then-this man- is: charged with burglary in your shop whom you entrusted' 'with the. key for. getting into the shop, and who advised you to put a new lock on your door knowing that he could not then get in?"—" Yes." ... . FRIENDLY, RELATIONS.

„ Admitting .their, friendly, relations witness said Armstrong had called her May, but she had not called him Howard. Confronted'with letters" she had ' written toaccused in 1915 which opened,' "Dear Howard," witness said she must have forgotten. Sir John: "He is charged with stealing boots, t etc.;, of the value of a few pounds .sterling. .^Has h,e;.Tiot. t advanced you imoiiey; on;: many occasio^s—^£6o on .one ocpasion?'.W''i«o ) -not? advanced it;" 'he""gave;,riie iitr to'lkeepj'ifof. hinii'V. ."What.xud" you'do.with it?"—"I paid £50 off my; Lhoiiss-,Y>ith it,buu~_l had the ."money-altAhe..,time -in--the-PosS Ofece." "What about the other £10?"—" It is still in,.the.bank.. He gave.it,to me

to hold for him, so that he would not have so much money in the bank." Sir John- said he quite understood that Armstrong would not want to appear to have too much money in the bank at the divorce proceedings, but still witness had admitted holding accused's money. In the course, of further replies witness, pressed by counsel, admitted that accused had paid insurance premiums for her, had kept the keys of her sa-fe, banked her money for her, and that generally she had regarded him as being above reproach. He had also been a good friend to her two boys for some years. Sir John : "Until he took to following you about, trying to find out who his rival was—after his divorce proceedings. You didn't doubt his honesty at all— until he became a 'silly old fool,' too much in love with you to know what he was doing?"— Witness did not answer. Further cross-examined, witness said that three years ago a burglary had been committed in her shop, the thief entering by the back window. A skeleton key was left in the front door on that occasion. In 1918 a burgla-r's jemmy was found in her shop yard, and a few days later the.boot shop opposite her place was entered. It was a fact that accused's former wife, on returning to Carterton, had locked the accused out of his house, and he probably had to find extra' keys with which' to gain entrance. She was quite prepared to say that after his kindness on former occasions he was the last man in Carterton who would steal from her. Rene Baillie, daughter of the last witness, gave evidence a,s to the entry of accused into Mrs. Baillie's house, when her mother called out: "Who's there?". Armstrong replied : " It's only me, Armstrong." He said he was there for a joke. Cross-examined, witness said that her mother had not stopped Armstrong from taking the key, which he had left in the door. DETECTIVE'S EVIDENCE. Detective-Sergeant Mason said that a skeleton-key was found in the back door on the night of the shop burgling, but the door had been forced by a jemmy. The key would have opened it. Further entrance from that direction was prevented by an inner door with a bar across it. Entrance had then been effected through the front door with the aid of a jemmy. The burglar had evidently taken the

"strongest line of resistance." Witness interviewed the accused because the. latter had reported a similar attempt on his own place. " A side door of Armstrong's place showed • marks liks those at Mrs. Baillie's He had remarked to Armstrong that the entries seemed to have been made by the same individual and that there had been no serious intention of burglary. Accused had seemed to agree with- him, and after that had followed him about. ■ ' (Proceeding.)