A CHARGE DISMISSED

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 138, 11 June 1920, Page 8

A CHARGE DISMISSED

"CERTAIN SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES"

DISAPPEARANCE OF £20.

A young man named James Neil, a barman, was charged, before Mr. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court this morning with haying stolen a sum of £20, the property of William Lancelot Holmes, his brother-in-law. Chief-Detective Ward conducted' the prosecution, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defence. The complainant gave evidence that the accused, who had done no work for some time past, had stayed with him in ■Majoribanks-street, eating his food and smoking his tobacco and, cigarettes. On 15th April witness told the accused that •he was giving, up the house, and that he would have to get out on the following day. VWtness saw Neil in the house at lunch time, on 16th April, but went, ■back to work without saying anything to him. • About 1.30 p.m. the accused •went to witness at Macarthy's brewery, ■and told him that his house was on fire. Neil was somewhat under the influence of liquor at the time. Witness hurried back to his house, and arrived just as ■the Fire Brigade was leaving after putting the fire out. In a wardrobe in his •room he had kept a sum of £20, of which £5 had been left in a coat pocket and the remainder in a>box. The money was missinc, but the coat was lying on a bed. The box could not be found. The door of the wardrobe had apparently been forced, and a small tomahawk, •usually kept in the scullery, was found in accused's room. Witness smelt kerosene upon, a hat on the floor of the wardrobe, where. the- fire, according to the Fire Brigade officials, had originated. Accused told witness that a blue serge suit of his had also disappeared, "Gone west," as he said. In answer to Mr. O'Leary, witness denied that there was any bad feeling 'between him and the Neil family. James Ward, a tailor, gave evidence as to the discovery of the fire. Raymond Allen, proprietor of the Whitehall board inghouse, said that the accused had called on the morning of, 16th April to arrange, for lodging, and when asked for payment in advance had said that he would pay when he returned. This he did from a roll of apparently five or six notes. . The accused.said that he had borrowed £5 from a friend, and- it was with that money thai; he .paid his board. When asked by the Chief Detective why he had not previously made that explanation, accused replied that he did not wish to drag his friend into the matter, and that he decided to let his brother-in-daw proceed with the action, in order that he^ might later bring a counter-action for malicious prosecution, or defamation of character. Mr. Ward recalled, certain matters in regard to the disposal of a stolen cornet and of a fire in a building in Dunediii in which the accused had an interest. The insurance companies refused to pay up in connection with that fire. He doubted whether Neil was likely to succeed in an action for damages for defamation of character. William Hollick, a. railway fireman, stated that he had lent Neil £5 on 16tK April, and produced a Savings Bank book to show a withdrawal of that 'amount on 16th April. After hearing counsel, the Magistrate said that though there were certain suspicious circumstances about the case, he did not think that he would be justified in convicting the accused. It was possible that some other person might have stolen the money. The case would be dismissed. i