A STOLEN RING

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 23, 27 July 1933, Page 22

A STOLEN RING

CHARGE OF RECEIVING

TRIAL OF A JEWELLER

. Conflicting verbal statements alleged to -. have been made by the accused played an important part in the case for the prosecution at the trial in the Supreme Court yesterday and today of Victor Brownson, a jeweller, aged 40, on a charge of having, received a diamond ling knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. The ling is the property of Mrs. Ivy M. Cummins; of -Lyall • Bay, and is valued by Her at £45; According to the evidence for the Crown the ring ■was stolen-from Mrs. Cummins's house on April 5, and was noticed, and positively identified, by her as her property, in; Brownson's shop window in ■ Willis Street some weeks later after the police had left a description of the Ting with Brownson with a request that, he should look out for it in case anyone should come in to sell it. . Mr.. Justice Reed is presiding, the case being tried by a jury of twelve. "• The prosecution is being conducted ■by Mr. P. S. K. Macassey, Crown Prosecutor, and Mr. W. E. Leicester is appearing for Brownson. : Part of the Crown's evidence related to the value of the ring. Guy Morris, a jeweller, said he thought the retail- price of the- ring when made, and even today, would be from £25 to £30. The ring obviously -was not a new one, and. he thought that would be apparent to anyone with common sense. Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester, witness admitted that the ring could be made to look like new. If a jeweller wanted money badly he would be lucky to get £15 for the ring_ today. In -witness's opinion, for a jeweller to buy it for- £7 10s, was quite a normal transaction. Mr. Leicester: It frequently happens in the jewelleiy business,, doesn't it, that -when a man's engagement is broken off he wants to sell the ring, and sa.ve -what he can out of the -wreck? Witness said that did happen. >' POLICE INVESTIGATIONS. Detective J. M. - Burke described what had been said at the interviews with Brownson after Mrs. Cummins had seen the ring in Brownson's shop windoiv and had identified it as her property. ■; Witness referred to the different explanations given by Browns6n as to how the ring came into his possession. At first Brownson said the ring had. been in stock for several months, but finally, after making other statements, he said he bought the ring from a man named Martin, who had told him thaf.the ling had been bought the week- be'fotre, but that his girl had broken off the engagement. A receipt was produced subsequent!? referring to the purchase of a five-stone diamond ring for '■ £7 10s on April 7, two days after the ring had been stolen from Mrs. Cummins's house. When asked why he had not" entered the purchase of'the ring in the secondhand purchase book, ■ and--why he had not. shown the ring to Detective McPhee when he had called repeatedly making enquiries about it, Brownson said he had not done so because he 'had not bought any second-hand rings. The ring he bought from Martin appeared to him to be a. new ,one. Brownson was asked for a description of the man, and this he gave. The receipt was signed L. Martin" and the address given on it -was 27 Abel Smith Street. This address was a timber yard. Inquiries were made there and no man of that name or anyone answering the description given by Brownson was known. ■ . • ■ ' ATTITUDE OI1 ACCUSED. Detective- Burke said that at no time during the inquiries did Brownson assist him and Detective .McPhee. Brownson's efforts were ..to mislead them, and it was only as a result of their proving that the explanations given were false that he finally admitted having bought the ling from the man Martin. _ , ■■ Similar evidence as to Brownson s statements was given, by Detective N. McPhee, and-this concluded: the case for the Crown; - -' CASE TOE DEFENCE. ■ Before ■ calling- ■ evidence, Mr. Leicester emphasised to the- jury that the onus was on-the Crown of proving that the ring was received by Brownson with guilty knowledge. . Evidence given for the defence was that on April 7- while a. nian named "William Smith, a seamen, was waiting in Brownson's, shop for a watch belonging to Dave Miller, a "City Council employee, which had been left to be repaired, a man came into the shop, and Smith heard a conversation between this man and Brownson. The sum of &7 10s was mentioned, and Smith heard the man remark that his girl had turned him down. Smith judged that the man was trying to dispose of some ring, and when the-man went out Brownson asked Smith what he thought of the ring, and told him that he had bought it for AT 10s. Books were produced to show that on April 7 a- watch left by Miller on April 5 was called for. It was -contended that the Crown's suggestion that the ring was purchased at a gross undervalue was disproved, even by the. Crown's- witnesses. - The defence" also'claimed that a few days after April 7 Detective McPhee called at at least one shop, a gold buyer's, and in giving a: description of the ring did not mention the unusual .features of the collet. Evidence to this effect wa's given- by- Charles Edwin Armstrong Rosser. .- ■• Harry Asher Montague, a wholesale jeweller' said that Brownson had the ring in the "Willis Street window of his shop on April 7, because he took it out of the window to show, witness. Witness said. if. he wished to buy the ring, lie' would offer £8 to £9 for it. Other evidence was that Brownson was conducting the business on a wage for his creditors, and that no- advantage would accrue to him by buying a ring he knew to be stolen. . BROWNSON'S STATEMENTS. Mention was made by Mr. Leicester of the reliance placed by the Crown on the incorrect statements said to have been made by Brownson. Counsel contended they were capable of analysis. This feature of the Crown's case was built up entirely on the ovidence of detectives, and it was suggested that the detectives had .-laced an unfair interpretation on the actions of Brownson and' some of his statements.. It was contended that the probabilities in favour of Brownson's innocence far outweighed- the probabilities of his guilt. ■ ' ■ ■Five witnesses were called for the defence. Brownson himself did not give evidence. . Mr.. Leicester and Mr. Maeassey addressed the jury, after which his Honour summed up: The jury retired' i * 12.17 p.m., and returned at. 12.55 p.m. -vlth a verdict of guilty. Brownson was remanded for sentence.

E. Johnston and Co;, auctioneers, will sell household furnishings at CO Cuba Street, Petone, tomorrow at 1 p.m. They will also continue the sale of Horden's, Ltd., stock of furnishings:at 278 Lambton Quay tomorrow at 1 p.m. Ramsey Wilson and Co. will sell furniture, chesterfield suites, and pianos at 1.30 tomorrow at their auction mart, 88 Manners Street. People Auction Mart are to sell 'furniture in the mart tomorrow at 2 p.m.