CASE DISMISSED

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 131, 30 November 1933, Page 15

CASE DISMISSED

THEFT CHARGE FAILS

DEFENCE NOT CALLED UPON

Stating that no jury would convict and that it would be a waste of time to send tho case on to the Supremo Court, Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon dismissed the charge against Eobert Harold Court, aged 40, a manufacturers' representative, of stealing musical instruments, gramophone parts, furniture, and other articles, of a total valuoof about £107 os'9d, tho property of Ernest Dawson, Ltd. Detective-Sergeant L. Eevell conducted the prosecution, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb was counsel for Court. Although tho .case lasted all day, only ono witness was heard. He- was Ernest Dawsoii, who spent four hours giving evidence* The- morning pro-, ceodings. were reported in last night's "Post." Shortly after the luncheon adjournment tho Magistrate interrupted Mr. Mazengarb's cross-examination of Dawson to ask whether the police had any other witnesses, because it.appeared to him, from Dawson's evidence, that either there was no theft at all or that if there was a theft Dawson waa a party to it and ho should not have been brought forward as an innocent witness. Detective-Sergeant Kevell replied that the police intended to call evidence as to the disposal of the goods by the accused and as to the surreptitious manner in which he went about getting 'them. ;•■■■. : Tho evidence so far, said the Magistrate, showed that it ; was understood that the accused was to take the goods as a security, and when Dawson came back from Auckland there had been no concealment. Could the police get past what the principal-witness said? Ho represented the company and he said under cross-examination that ho left Court in charge of the business while he was in Auckland. He . said also that there was to be a security for Court. Supposing the police could prove that Court did remove tho goods at* night, it might lead to a suspicion but not to a conviction. Court was to take security, and he took it. "The statement the; witness makes now is quite foreign to what we acted on," remarked- the detective-sergeant, who said, however, that ho was not suggesting collusion between Court and Dawson since the trouble arose. NO ACCUSATION AGAINST DAWSON. The Magistrate thought it fair to say that he wa3 making no accusation whatever against Dawsoii when ho said, that he either must have been a party to tne removal of the goods or not. Mr. Hewitt did iiot want it to be thought that he said Dawson was a party to the ack It was ; only a mat-! ter of premise for1 the' purpose of argument. ..-",'...,' Dawson wanted to ask in what way his evidence was foreign to what ho had told the police, but ho was not allowed to do so. "♦ When Dawson had concluded his evidence Mr. Hewitt asked the detec-. tive-sergeant to indicate the nature of the rest of the police evidence. "We can only prove the recovery of tho goods," answered DetectiveSergeant Kevell, and Mr. Hewitt thereupon dismissed tho case.