LOWER HUTT BURGLARY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 72, 28 March 1929, Page 13

LOWER HUTT BURGLARY

EECEIVING- CHAEGE ADMITTED

Another aspect of the Lower Hutt burglary and arson case was revealed in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. Hewitt Allan Capon, a bus driver, aged 24, was charged with receiving stolen goods valued at £33 10s 4d, with breaking and entering the shop of Robert Young Shearer, Ltd., by night on 11th January, in company with Thomas Gordon, George Wilfred Ryan, and Richard Ryan, and stealing goods valued at £147 10s Id, and with, also in company with the other .three men, setting fire to the shop. Robert Young Shearer and Lobert Harold Shearer, partners in the firm, gave evidence along the lines of that tendered when the Ryan brothers and Gordon were charged with arson and breaking and entering and theft. _ A young woman, living at tower Mutt, said that she had known the accused tor two years. On the evening of 10th January, she came into town, and was met at Lambton Station by the accused, who took her in a taxi-car to a house m Hawkestone crescent. He was ' living at the house with a young man named Thomas Gordon, who was present with a man named George Ryan when witness arrived Witness and the three men went into a nearby house, where they spent the evening with the owner and his wile. The man had several glasses of beer, and finally left with witness about 10.30 for Lower Hutt. The car stopped near witness's home, and the accused .took her home, leaving her about U. 30. He was quite sober. She next saw him on loth January, when he said he was going to; Dannevirke. About 12.30 p.m. on Saturday last, he visited witness and asked her if the detectives had seen her and, if so, what had she told them. She replied that the detectives had interviewed her and she had told them the truth. He said that it rested with her to save him; the detectives were not to know what time he .had left her on 10th January He wanted her to say -hat the car went towards Wellington after leav'"Detective JG. C. Jarrold gave evidence of havinf examined ; the shop after the fire. One of the fireß, he said, would have destroyed the evidence that the place had been entered if it had not been suppressed. On 9th March the accused was arrested at Norsewood on a. charge of receiving stolen property, and he was brought back to Wellington. On 20th March witness visited the gaol in company with Detective-Sergeant ineklebank taking some of the accuseds property with him. The accused selected certain of the garments which he said he received from Gordon. He denied that he was implicated in the burglary, and said he was quite prepared to make a statement explaining his movements on the night of 10th January. He made a statement to the effect that he went to bed about 10 p.m. on 10th January, and slept until 1 the next morning. After he had returned from breakfast at a restaurant he found thafc Gordpn was home and in bed. When he awakened Gordon produced two parcels of new clothi..g. some of which he sold to the accused, who knew it had been stolen. Witness told the accused that he had found ■ the following, entry in his (Capon's) diary for lUtn January: "Strenuous night; no sleep; no trade in taxi business." 'On being shown the entry, the accused daid that the nrst statement was false,- and he, volunteered to make a true one. In the second statement he set out that after taking, the young woman home he waited for deorge Ryan and Gordon. They picked him up shortly after midnight and brought him into Wellington. They said they had a job to do and left him. The accused went home and stayed up all night, waiting for them to return. Gordon was home when he returned from breakfast, and the accused purchased some clothing from him. „ At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, on behalf of the accused, submitted that there was no evidence to justify the committal of the accused to the Supreme Co".rt for trial on the charges of arson and breaking and entering and theft. Mr. E. Page, 'S.M., said he thought he would have to send all three charges before the jury. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving, and not guilty to the other charges. He was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence on the first charge, and for trial on the others.