BURGLARY CHARGES

Evening Star, Issue 22954, 11 May 1938, Page 8

BURGLARY CHARGES

YOUNG MAH ON TRIAL LAST STAGE OF HEARING The trial of Edward Farris on charges arising from a series of burglaries and attempted burglaries in Dunedin and Mosgiel on the night of January 24 was concluded in the Supreme Court today before Mr Justice Kennedy. The case for the Crown rested largely on the testimony of two men who were alleged to have accompanied Farris in these excursions and who'are now serving sentences for their part in the offences. No*evidence was called for the defence. - Mr F. 8., Adams ■ represented the Crown and Mr O. G. Stevens the accuseds, who denied participation in the offences.

Continuing his _ evidence Sydney Joseph Samways said that when he, Webb, and Farris left his house in tho rented car on the night of January 24 they took two torches and two pairs of gloves. Mr Adams: Why did you take the gloves ?—Because it was cold. Any other reason? —I had an idea we might he doing a “ job.” We took torches for the same reason.

Samways described their trip to Waitati and the return through Port Chalmers. Here they decided to “do ” a tobacconist’s shop, but there were too many people about. When they were coming in to the city they stopped at the new bridge in Anzao Avenue, and here Samways took a bar with which he subsequently forced' tho door, of the Self-help Store in Prince Albert road. Farris was at the wheel of the car, while witness and Webb were in the store, and a few moments later he “ revved ” the engine up as a signal that someone was coming. Samways gave a full description of the party’s attempted entries into the stores of Mr Jamieson in Mailer street and Mr Croft in Carroll street, corroborating Webb as to the part played by Farris in these crimes. They then went to Mosgiel (at Farris’s suggestion), where they burgled Mr Joll’s store. Witness threw the iron bar out of the car as they were returning to Dunedin. They arrived back at Samways’s home between 5.30 and 6.30 a.m. and divided the stolen tobacco into three shares. The of > tissue papers produced were found in his overcoat pocket, but were not a part of his share, and he did not know how they got there. Detective Marsh said that he saw Farris'a week after the burglaries, and informed him that Webb had been arrested, the latter having stated that Farris was with him when the offences were committed. Farris admitted being in the car until about 10.30 that night, but denied any participation in the burglaries, saying that he spent the remainder of the night (until 6 a.m.) with a young married woman. He subsequently gave Detective Marsh the name of this woman. In his statement to the police Farris said that he noticed the hired car still outside, Samway’s house on the morning of January 25. Mr Stevens: Would it be proper for you to interview the woman whose name and address Farris gave you?—Yes, Did she live in the vicinity of Rattray street?—Above Rattray street. Mr Adams: Did you in fact interview the woman? —I did. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Stevens intimated that no evidence would be called for the defence.

Addressing the jury, Mr Adams said that the Crown’s case rested mainly on the stories of the accused’s two companions. These two men were already serving sentences for their share in the night’s activities, and they had nothing to gain by committing perjury. The accused’s defence was an alibi, but his statement that he had spent the night with a married wompn was capable of proof. The defence-'had brought forward nothing to substantiate it. Mr Stevens emphasised that the case for the Crown rested on the testimony of two convicted thieves, and that the evidence of accomplices must be' regarded with the greatest caution. If the defence had produced witnesses like Samways and, WeKb they would probably have been derided, and just because they appeared for the Crown they did not assume a halo of innocence and purity. Counsel reviewed the evidence in detail, and spoke of what he regarded as its ‘deficiencies and discrepancies. The detective had interviewed the woman with whom the accused spent the night, but the Crown had not produced her in court. If it had, the case would have been shot to pieces. And the defence would not he the instrument of her being brought to court and shamed. Such an action would have been contemptible and despicable on the part of the accused. Weighing all the contradictory evidence, the jury would find that the charges had not been proved, concluded counsel. His Honour concluded his summing up at 1 p.m., and the jury then retired.