SUPREME COURT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 27, 31 July 1924, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

PRISONER PLEADS GUILTY

The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were continued in Wellington this morning before Mr. Justice Reed.

Frank Ansell pleaded guilty to forgery in the sending of a number of telegrams, knowing them to be false, with intent that they should be acted upon as genuine.

. Sentence was deferred until Saturday morning.

ALLEGED THEFT AND RECEIVING. J.oseph William Moore pleaded not guilty to theft of a suitcase containing a lady's wearing apparel, valued at ±582 2s. 6d, the property of ono Elizabeth Elgy; the theft of a suitcase and contents, valued at £5, the property of J. L. M'Millan ; tho theft of tweed coats and a case valued at £26, the property of some person unknown; and of materials valued at £8 9s Id, tho property of T. L. Skerman. Accused was also charged alternatively on each charge with receiving the goods, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained.

Mr. A. B. Sievwright represented prisoner, Mr. P. S. K. .Marassey prosecuted, and Mr. M. J. Hodgins was foreman of the jury. '

Mr. Macassey said the suitcase mentioned in the first charge was left in the hall of tha Windsor Hotel, and disappeared. Tho second theft took place from a. car left outside the Commercial Travellers' Club, and the goods belonging to Skerman were stolen from a car left standing in a main street. From inquiries made, the police decided to search the room of accused, and out of £110 worth stolen £121 worth was found hi his room.

During' the search of the premises, continued Mr. Macassey, the police found a number of coats, and these were the subject of the remaining charge. Accused made a statement to the police in which he said that he was injured and could not follow his usual occupation. He had indulged in whatever dealing he could, but this was the first time he had dealt in the sort of goods which wero then interesting the police. Accused said he bought all the goods from a man who wasl a total stranger to him, and whose name he thought was Smith. As far as he knew, Smith had gone to Australia. He had met Smith in a hotel, and had been told about the goods. Smith brought them to his rooms, and accused boujrht them for £16.

No evidence was called for the defence. ' Mr. Seivwright addressed the jury, and in doing so said all the charges fell in two classes, four of alleged theft, and four of receiving. He submitted that the Crown had not given one piece of evidence to show that the client was guilty oi theft. . All the evidence had consisted of allegations; the only evidence against accused boing that the articles were found in bis possession. His client said he became in possession of them quits honestly, and had made this statement to eeveral people. The Crown had done nothing to show that accused stole the goods, or that he bad' come into possession of them, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. The proof of his' dishonesty must be clear and convincing. The goods were held quite openly in the room for a period of nearly two, months. In addition he gave one of the coats to Burrows (the other man) to sell, not knowing anything of Burrows, or where he would go. This was not the sort of thing a man with a guilty knowledge would do. ilis Honours summing up was postponed until this afternoon. (Proceeding.)