THEFT CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 44, 30 August 1928, Page 22

THEFT CHARGES

ELECTRICAL GOODS POLICE METHODS CRITICfSED Tlio defence to tlio charges against George Ashtou Ferguson, a clerk, aged 34, of stealing an electric iron and three lamp shades, valued at £2 5s Cd, belonging to the National Electric and Engineering Company, and a battery charger, a "pick-up," and two valves, valued at £11 12s, the property of the same company, was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr. E. Page SJ\I., was on.the Bench. Chief-Detec-tive Ward prosecuted,- and Mr. A. B. Siewvright appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty to both charges, j Sidney Frederick William Vause gave evidence as to having received a "pickup" and a battery charger on trial from Ferguson. Ho had no intention of keeping them without paying for them. He also received two radio valves, one from Ferguson and the other, on approval, from a fellow-em-ployee of the accused. Cross-examined by Mr. Ward, witness said that he was interviewed by Detectives Jarrold and M'Lennan about .the charger and the "pick-up," and that they said lie was suspected of having stolen records from his employers and given them to Ferguson. He denied having told them that ho knew Ferguson had stolen, the goods, or that the accused had given him the goods in consideration of records. A statement in writing was taken from him, but he did not read it before signing it and endorsing it as being true. He denied having told the detectives that ho had stolen the records and given them to Ferguson. The reason for signing the statement without reading it over was that he thought he would co to liia employer and explain about ■ giving away the records, although ho had authority to give them away._ Witness thought the statement was m Detective M'Lennan's writing. Mr Ward: "Do you suggest that the police wilfully put untruthful ments 'in that document?"—' Yes, i. d°Mr. Sievwright (to the witness): "Do you know any reason why the detective wanted to 'frame up' false statements against you?" Mr Page: "I think you are not justified' in using that term, Mr. SievWrThe 'witness answered the question in the negative. The records, he said, were straight-out gifts. The charger and the "pick-up" were to have been returned the next week. He would n-t say it was not the practice of the company to send out approval notices with goods, although he knew of r sev,I oral eases in which no notices ..were 1 . SCOharles! John Ferguson, father "of the accused, said that on 28th July he wen to the detective office and saw Ins son and Detective M'Lennan in a small !room. His son was crouching in a ! chair and seemed very upset. ! Mr. Sievwright:. "To what would you attribute his condition?" ■ _ Mr. Page: ."I1 don't.think that is a proper question, Mr. Sievwright." Witness said,that the detective .remarked that, his son would say nothing and added, "It 4s not him wo.;-are alter, it's the others." Witness then advised the accused to_ tell the truth about the matter. The accused did not answer, and the detective pointed to some papers on the.table, and said, "Sign them." Neither the accused nor the detective read the papers over while witness was. there. The accused ■• was, take.ii- away,-.-but soon roturned With his collar off. Witness nsked where his collar • was, and the accused replied, " They's taken my braces as well.". Then Detective Jarrold came in "arid said,'"H6pretends to for- ' get. A bad deed you cannot forget, a good deed you may forget." Witness' then said he would like to see Mr. Sievwright, and Detective Jarrold said to the accused, "Come on," and went out of the room, telling witness to wait. Mr. Page: "Are those details important to your case, Mr. Sievwright?" Mr. Sievwright:. "I just want the Court to appreciate the methods adopted by the detectives in dealing with suspected persons." Counsel hoped,that after hearing the details, the Court would make representations to the police authorities as to the proper conduct of investigations into allegations against suspected persons. Witness gave further details of the conversation between himself and the detectives. ■ . ■ ■ An operator 'from a picture-.theatre gave, evidence .that he had received a loud speaker on approval from the company without an accompanying approval notice. The accused, in the witness bos, said that the only goods supplied to Mr. Burn, of Kilbirnie, were the iron and twelve lamp shades. They were charged against him, the -shades being supplied on "firm account," and the iron on approval. Through witness's agency, "Vause Was supplied with the charger and,the "pick-up" on approval. Witness said that he knew nothing about one of the valves which had been supplied to Vause. The other was his own property and had been in his possession for eighteen months. Witness said that he was kept at the detective office f*r three hours. He denied having admitted that he supplied Burn with the iron and three other shades knowing that he was stealing them. He alleged that the detectives had said that some consideration ' must, have been given to him in return for electrical, goods. ■ •■-•'■ Witness said that whon ho appeared in Court on the first occasion, ho had pleaded guilty to giving the goods to Burns,-not to stealing them. Before coming into Court, Detective Jarrold had described the Court procedure to Mm/saying that after the charge was read he would be asked to plead and ho would plead guilty. Ho could then ask the Magistrate for suppression of his name, ' Mr. Page: "You were going to plead guilty ;■knowing'., that, you were- innooout1?" —"Yes. I really did not understand my position at that time." Mr. Sievwright (to the accused): "If you knew you were innocent, why did you plead guilty?" —"Because I was misled by Detective Jarrold, and I wanted the matter cleared up. I gave the iron to Burns —" Mr. Page: ."What do you mean?"— "I gave him tho iron and omitted to enter it in the approval book." "Did you know the charge was one of theft?" —"I really did not understand the charge." , • .; In reply to Mr. Sievwright, witness saidthat ho hacl signed both statementswithont reading them over. In regard to tbo charge and tho "pick-up," he had forgotten'to enter them in the approval book. Both statements, he alleged, had been "concocted" by the I j detectives. , j 1 Gross-examined by Mr. Ward, witness I said that the visit from tho detectives was quite unexpected, although he had. previously been questioned by his manager about shortages in the stock. "You know yon had pleaded guilty to a charge of tuoft?"—"l know I had pleaded guilty to giving the iron to Burns." "I suggest that had.it not been for the other.charge you would have been dealt with on the charge to which you had pleaded guilty and nothing more would- have been heard about the matter?"—" Then I would, but not now." Witness admitted, having endorsed the first statement to the effect that lie had read it over and it was true, his reason being that , jic was too "full . up" to soo what was in. it. At the conclusion, of the cyidisicej Mr. J

Ward submitted that a prima facie case had been made out. Mr. Sicvwright submitted that there was insufficient evidence to justify the Court sending the accused forward for trial. Counsel proceeded to traverse the ovielcnco, and contended tlnit the accused had simply acted inadvertently in omitting to enter the goods in thu approval book. Mr. Pago said that ho proposed toscud the accused forward to trial, and pointed out that Ferguson had signed two statements admitting his guilt, and had pleaded guilty in Court to the first charge. . The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges and wis committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was renewed.