THE POLICE SUANDALS

Evening Star, Issue 12625, 3 October 1905, Page 4

THE POLICE SUANDALS

THE OWNERSHD? OF SEIZED GOODS. CLAIMED BY THE D.I.C. This momine, at the Chambers sitting, Mr Justice Williams had before him an interpleader summons in the form of an application by Detective Herbert that the claimants for certain goods—namely, the Drapery and General Snporting Company and ex-Constable* James M'Dona.d, Thonw* Moses, and Edward Quill—appear and state the nature and particulars of their claims U> a toy boat, a toy engine, two black-hair clothes brashes, one silver-mounted stick, one green silver-mounbad puree, four sponges, two white-hair brushes, one silvermounted green pocket book, two silvermounted brown purses, one rolled morocco green p'urse, one silver shoehorn, two umbrellas, three silver-mounted sticks, one rubber sponge, one rolled gold chain, one pair rug straps, and one morocco purse, of the total value of £l4 5s 6d, and maintain or relinquish such claims. Mr Fraser appeared for tho applicant, Mr James for the D.LC, and Mr Hanlon for the ex-constables. At the outset His Honor expressed a doubt as to whether the two convicted exconstables coul3 "Be parties to the proceedings, but upon consideration this was allowed.

Mr Fraser explained that Detective Herbert had been sued in the Magistrate's Court for possession of the goods, and as there was no interpleader in the Magistrate'? Court he was compelled to come to the Supreme Court to make matters right and bring the parties together. He would call Detectwe Herbert, who would say that though these goods were exposed for a long time in the Police Court they were not identified. Mr .James: That is accounted for by the absence from the colony of the person who could identify. He is here now. Detective Herbert said that he took possession of these goods on the 15th March. He took them from the possession of WDonaid, Moses, and Quill. All these goods were now claimed by the D.I.C, and he was being sued for them. They were all laid out on the table in the police library, and the fact that they were exposed was mentioned in the newspapers. A great number inspected the goods. Amongst them were a number of D.LC. employees, Including Mr Scarfe, who could not identify thorn in a way that would have justified the police in including them in the indictments. To have done so would have been to weaken the police case. To Mr Hanlon: There were no marks on. any good 9 inclnded in the list. On some of the goods there was just sufficient to show that there had) been a ticket. Most of the goods were such as could, be got in any fancy goods shop. The morocco parse claimed by Quill was part of the property he was charged with stealing. He was found not Jjuilty. Hi was not identified by the D.LC. at the time. Quill was indicted for everything found in his possession. To Mr Fraser: MTDonald had not confessed that it was stolen from the D.LC. On the contrary, he denied it. Detective Cooney also gave evidence. Walter Huntley, called by Mr James, said that he was buyer and manager of the fancy -department of the D.LC. He was in London when the robbery took place, and returned to the colony in August, after the trial The firm asked him to go to the police .office and see if he. could identify any of the goods, and on being shown them he at once identified ail the goods on the list, with the exception of the umbrellas, as the property of the D.I.C. He picked them out from a number of others. He was an expert, having been buying these gtjpds for twenty years. (Witness gave particulars as to how he identified each article.) He did not identify & green letter case which was put in front of him. To Mr Hanlon : As to the black brushes, he did not think there was another firm in Dunedin that imported Dupont's make. He identified the goods without any mark whatever. Ho could not swear that the black brushes produced were not purchased at the D.I.C. He did not believe that other firms stocked purses by the same maker. Percy Scarfe said bo identified the two umbrellas as the D.I.C. property. They were expensive umbrellas, costing 35s each. They were samples. He positively identified them. Detective Cooney, recalled, said that the identification by Scarfe at the police station was very much weaker than his identification to-day. Detective Herbert said that Scarfe seemed to be suro enough at the police 6totion, hut he (witness) doubted then, and doubted still, whether in the absence of a distinguishing mark the identification was completely established. , # ... Mr Hanlon said that the position he took np for his clients was this: the goods wore found in their possession, and it was for the other side to prove ownership. The evidence of identification by the D.I.C. was Dot satisfactory. 14 was very strong, but so strong as to bo ab«nrd, and what was to become of other people's claims to the goods. Detective Cooney said that other people claimed the brushes and the purses, and raid as to othr articles that they could be pot anywhere. Mr James replied that if the ex-con-stables bought these goods they could at the time have shown from whom. He submitted that in the absence of other claims the D.I.C. had established ownership. Mr Hanlon said it was not for his clients to prove ownership. Possession constituted a prima facie title, and it was for the other side to upset it. His Honor gave judgment, declaring all the goods in question, with the exception of the white hair brushes and the shoehorn found at M'Donald's, the sponge, chain, and the straps found at Moses's, and the purse found at Quill's, were the property of the D.LC.

There was only one thing in the list found at Quill'e —viz., the purse hero mentioned—and Mr Hanlon askrd for costs to Quill, and His Honor allowed one guinea. Detective Herbert was allowed four guineas costs as against the articles, and the D.I.C. were allowed costs against M'Dooald and Moses.