EX-CONSTABLE CRITICISED

Evening Star, Issue 21005, 20 January 1932, Page 12

EX-CONSTABLE CRITICISED

“SAVOURS OF GROSS IMPERTINENCE" POSSESSION OF STOLEN BICYCLES DECIDED “All I say, after these proceedings and my remarks, is that it savours of gross impertinence for such an application to be made to the court.” The scathing remarks were made in the Police Court to-day by Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., when Ivon Garnon, an ex-police constable, made an application for expenses, after the court had held thei'e was not a shred of evidence to show that Garnon was entitled to either of two bicycles in the possession of the police. The hearing of an application by the police to decide the ownership of the machines, claimed by Robert Noel Barnett and Garnon, was an echo of recent Supremo Court proceedings when Garnon' was acquitted on charges of theft. Robert Noel Barnett, a messenger, gave evidence as to losing his bicycle in the Octagon on September 10, 1929. He saw the machine again over twelve months later in the possession of a boy named Arthur Reynolds. He identified the seat, the handle bar, and the driving wheel as those from nis cycle. The frame of the other cycle produced in court was his. The other parts of the cycles were not identifiable. He had possessed the cycle for three or four years before losing it. To Garnon: He could definitely identify the parts of his machine. He had identified the saddle on his own initiative at the Detective Office.

Garnon: No, you did not. It was put to you. “You must not make remarks of that sort,” said the magistrate. “ You can ask questions, but you must not make aspersions.” Frank Albert Reynolds said he was given a cycle by Garnon two days before Garnon was transferred to Port Chalmers. The machine was in pieces. Garnon produced the cycle from underneath a bench in a shed. The big saddle was among the parts. All the cotter pins, ball bearings, brake bands, chain tighteners, tyres, and bolt and wedge for the head were missing. He had purchased the parts at a cost of £l. To Garnon: When Barnett and Detective Gibson inspected the cycle Barnett said he thought the machine was his. After examination the detective warned Barnett to be sure, as it was a serious matter, and Barnett replied that he was not sure that the cycle was his, but the saddle looked like his. Barnett made no remarks as to the identification marks on the various parts. To Detective-sergeant Nuttall: He admitted stating, in previous proceedings, that Barnett had said he was not sure, but the bicycle looked liked his. Garnon; Did Detective-sergeant Nuttall tell you that I had accused you of stealing the bicycle? Mr Nuttall strongly objected to the question. He said he wpuld go into the box himself to give evidence in rebuttal. Garnon; Did you say you did not believe that? Witness: ,Yes. 1 Did he not then say that he had seen it in black and white in my handwriting?—Yes. Did he not ask for points in my defence?—He asked who was defending you. Mr Nuttall: Did you not say that you were between the devil and deep blue sea, and did I not say the only thing to do was to tell the truth?—That is so. Do you stand there on oath and say that I said Garnon had accused you?— You said Garnon had accused me of stealing the bicycle. I asked you what I should do about it. You said there was only one thing to do, and that was to tell the truth. You told me that you had seen it in writing. “How could I tell you that when Garnon had committed nothing to writing?” asked Mr Nuttall. Garnon: You would tell him anything. Warning Garnon to keep quiet, the Magistrate said that Garnon had had sufficient experience- to know how to hehave himself in court. Detective Gibson gave evidence regarding the examination of a bicycle at a house in Mornington. He said he questioned the hey Garnon about another bicycle and was told that his father had given it to him about four years ago. The lad said it was then a brand new B.S.A. Witness had said it looked an older machine and did not seem to be a B.S.A. Later the boy admitted that what he Had said was not the truth, and that the bicycle had been given to him by his father two years ago. The boy stated that he did not know wl ere his father had got the machine.

Superintendent Eccles gave evidence as to Garnon’s written explanations when asked for a report. Garnon: Did you send a memorandum to me at Port Chalmers three weeks ago suggesting that I should claim the bicycles?—That is so. Did I not send a memorandum to the Minister in charge of the police on the subject of the police methods in the identification of these bicycles?— That does not matter.

The Magistrate: That does not concern the question of the identification of the bicycles. On oath, Detective-sergeant Nuttall denied that he had told Reynolds that Garnon had accused him with the theft of the bicycle. Garnon declined to give evidence and called no witnesses. He referred the bench to the depositions of Barnett, Reynolds, and Dickel, in the lower court and Supreme Court. Barnett had failed to identify any part of a bicycle, and was considerably discredited in court. He suggested that, in view of the contents of the depositions, it was established beyond all doubt that Barnett had not one particle of claim to any part of the bicycle. The Magistrate: The point is that you have to establish your right to the bicycles. They are in the possession of the police, and it is for you to establish your claim. In reply to a question, Reynolds said he did not claim the bicycle other than that the machine had been given to him by Garnon. “ In these proceedings there is not a shred of evidence to show that Garnon is entitled to either of these bicycles,” said His Worship. When asked about the cycle given by him to _ Reynolds, Garnon stated to his superior officer, deliberately in writing,, that he did not give any part to Reynolds and knew nothing about the matter. That was false. When asked about the other cycle, Garnon’s son said the cycle was given to him by his father. The boy’s statement to the detectives was certainly a prevarication. Garnon denied, in a written statement, anything about the bicycle. Garnon sought to show, by reference to the depositions in the previous cases that the identification of the bicycle was unsatisfactory. There was absolutely no shred of evidence, beyond the bare fact of possession, of which a false account had been given, that Garnon had any right to the cycles. Barnett had certainly hesitated over the identification, but his

reference to particular marks appeared to be sufficient identification. Three parts of the machine had been identified. It was common knowledge that the component parts of stolen bicycle? were frequently changed. ' The Magistrate ordered _ that the frame of the second machine should be handed with the parts from the first machine to Barnett, the parts of the second bicycle to be retained as the property stolen from some person unknown He had no need to disbelieve Reynolds’s evidence that he had purchased parts. However, the parts were placed on a stolen bicycle, and he could not recover.

Garnon complained that he and his son had been served with a subpoena only yesterday, while Barnett had received his summons on January 14. He applied for expenses. “ All I say, after these proceedings and my remarks, is that it savours of gross impertinence for such an application to be made to the court." replied the Magistrate, in refusing the application.