NOT GUILTY

Evening Star, Issue 21640, 8 February 1934, Page 14

NOT GUILTY

ALLEGED THEFT OF FUR NECKLET JURY ACQUITS YOUKG MAH The Supreme Court was engaged yesterday afternoon in hearing the charge against George Alexander Low of, on or about July 1, 1932, at Dunedin, stealing a fur necklet, valued at £l9 10s, the property of the Canadian Fur Salon Ltd. . On a second count the accused was charged with receiving the necklet, well knowing that it had. been dishonestly obtained. The accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended bv Mr_ P. M. Hanan. Yesterday morning evidence was given by Janies M. Douglas (manager of the Canadian Fur Salon), Gwendoline A. Douglas (saleswoman), John Simpson (licensee of the Rughv Hotel), and Mrs Simpson (wife Of the licenser). In the afternoon Laurence Wilson, acting-detective, stationed at Auckland, said that subsequent to the arrest of the- accused, the accused admitted lie had sold furs to Miss M‘Gie and Mrs Simpson. He also said that if the matter had been, mentioned before it might have been cleared up. He had not offered aiiy explanation as to how he came by the furs. Detective Gibson, Dunedin, said that the accused, shortly after-his arrival in Dunedin, remarked: “It is a pity the girl who purchased the fur will not be there for me to ask. her a few questions.” • ■ ■

Mr Hanan said he did not intend to call evidence.’ , The Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury, emphasising that no honest explanation had been given by the accused as to how he came by the furs. Mr Hanan,, in addressing the jury, ■said that every possible shred of evidence obtainable had been brought forward to determine whether the accused was guilty or not. In regard to the charge, of theft the jury must examine the evidence not merely to be satisfied that there might be suspicious circumstances, but to be satisfied that the accused actually stole this particular necklet. The witness Douglas had endeavoured to prove conclusively that the fur necklet was the property of the company,, but it was for the jury to say, having regard to the nature of the object, whether it was possible for a -person to identify definitely months afterwards an article that had passed through his hands. In cross-examination the witness would not swear that there was no other fur in New Zealand similar to the fur in question. Counsel submitted that, despite the evidence of the manager, it was- impossible for him to definitely identify the fur. It was not suggested the manager was dishonest, but that he was labouring under a mistaken belief. 'lhorc was a doubt, and consequently the matter must be viewed in favour of the accused. But even if the fur were the property of the company, that did ■not prove the accused to be guilty of theft. The case was an unusual one of Theft-.because, therea,p. positive I

evidence of any act of stealing—there was not an atom of evidence to show theft by the accused. In regard to the charge of receiving, counsel claimed that the Crown had not, produced one witness to prove guilty knowledge on the part of the accused. The mere possession of “an article was not conclusive evidence that the person holding It was guilty’of receiving, according' to the Crimes Act. ,If that were so, no person in the community would be safe. A person was not bound to give an explanation as to how he came into |iossession; the onus, rested on the Crown to show that he had obtained the article by theft‘or that he acquired it knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. More suspicion ,or mere inference was not suflicient; the jury must, have no doubt whatever as to the mail’s guilt. His Honour, after detailing the evidence, said bis own view of the case was that it was weak and it would be unsafe for the jury to say that the accused either stole the property or received it knowing t to have been dishonestly obtained. The jury retired at 3.33 and returned to - court at 3.55 with a verdict of not guilty. . ■ The accused was discharged.