UNSUITABLE TOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 111, 6 November 1929, Page 13

UNSUITABLE TOOLS

COUNTERFEITING CHARGE

ACCUSED DEFENDS HIMSELF

(l>y Telegraph.—Press Association.)

NAPIEE, sth November. Phillip Whelan Darragh was charged in the Supreme Court to-day with having in his possession an instrument adapted for, and ' intended for, counterfeiting copper coins.

a A detective stated in evidence that he had occasion to interview.the accused in Hastings, in the course of which Darrngli produced a set of soldering tools, stating they were for making double-headed pennies, which he said were worth five shillings each.

Questioned by Mr. Justice Ostler, witnesa stated that the set was complete with- the .exception of solder, for - the splitting of pennies. Some very fine wire solder was found in the accused's bag, but this was not produced in the Lower Court.

The prisoner at this stage pointed out that the split pennies found upon him. had rings upon them, pointing to tho fact that they had been turned on .a lathe. Ho asked His Honour to examine the pennies, and his Honour did so, remarking that three certainly bore the mark of having been turned on a lathe, but the fourth looked to him as if it had been cut with a hacksaw. ;

Prisoner (to witness): "How could you make a job of soldering two split pennies together?"—"l am not a ■plumber, neither am I versed in counterfeiting." ' ■

His Honour, after examination of the saw, stated that it appeared the blade was too thick for sawing down the centre of pennies. It certainly appeared to him as though it was more adapted for woodwork.

The accused, in evidence, stated'that oh the day he was arrested, he took his bag round to tho police station. He showed the police the outfit, and said ho was going to experiment with pennies to try to join them, together. The fails were ground off on a lathe in an engineering shop.

The Crown Prosecutor: "Where were they ground down?"—"I won't divulge that." ...

"What were you going to do?"—"I was going to make double-headed pennies, but I had not made auy at that time." . ' . " -

"What was the blow lamp for?"— "It is part of the soldering outfit." The- prisoner went ta.ck into the dock and addressed the jury, pointing out that the tools he had were totally unsuitable for making "double-headers." "There is a' way of making them, and I could demonstrate it there." he said, pointing to the legal table, "but it is not that way." „-. .-.-.

Summing up," his Honour said the ease was a simple one.. First, of all, the prisoner said he was intending to make double-headed pennies, and then said the .tools that he had were not suitable. It looked to him as though the accused was right, and the saw was merely a fret-saw for cutting wood. That, however did not finish the matter, .for the .accused had in his possession a complete 'spidering outfit, without' solder, and he had said that he intended to attempt to make doubleheaded .pennies. There was then the question as to wHother the making of double-headed pennies constituted counterfeiting, and a Court of three Judges in New South Wales had decided- that it did. The whole question for the jury to. decide was whether the instruments found in accused's possession were suitable" for the work, for which it was alleged they were intended.

Tho jury returned a verdict' of ' not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.