ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE

Evening Star, Issue 23324, 21 July 1939, Page 16

ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE

LABOURER CONVICTED ON MAJOR COUNT SEQUEL TO MACLAGGAN STREET PARTY After a retirement of thirty-five minutes, the jury in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon found! Frederick Gordon guilty of the charge of robbing Janies Edgar of £3 18s in money and various other articles (of a total value of £4), and of using personal violence in committing the crime. Gordon, who was remanded until this morning for sentence, was acquitted on, the alternative counts of assault so as to cause actual bodily harm and of theft. Mr F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown, the accused* being represented by Air O. G. Stevens. Evidence was given in the afternoon by Ronald Stewart Campbell, who had come to Dunedin with Gordon and Fletcher, that while they were at Wilson’s house Gordon asked him if he would! like to “be in on a job.” ’Witness refused, saying he would have nothing to do with it, and that he was “ not a chap like that,” When lie and Mi's Wilson were returning to the bouse with fish and chips they met Edgar, who was dazed! and bleeding on one side of his face. .Witness took him to the hotel". During the evening Gordon was paying particular attention to Edgar. To Mr Stevens, witness said that Edgar then told them that ho had! been assaulted by two men. There had been trouble with Gordon earlier in the evening when witness tried to get Fletcher away from the house. Elizabeth AABlson said that Gordon and! Edgar were both very drunk when they arrived at her son’s cottage. She described the meeting of herself and Campbell with Edgar, after which she had gone home. Eileen Janet M'Millan gave evidence that Edgar was fairly diunk when lie arrived at the house. Gordon also was “ pretty drunk.” When Edgar went outside witness told Gordon to direct him. She heard them talking loudly. Edgar did not come inside again, but Gordon came in about 20 minutes later. To Mr Stevens, witness said that while they were at the house Edgar said he would “ toss ” Gordon; Gordon asked him to “ put up his money,” but Edgar said he had no money and had just wanted to find out if he (Gordon) had any. William Dunlop Black, a barman at the Shamrock Hotel, said that that afternoon he had changed a £5 note for Edgar in the bar. He described Edgar’s feturn, to the hotel in a battered condition, and his meeting with Gordon on the following morning, when Edgar pointed him out as the man responsible for the assault. ■; John Henry M’Queen, a milk boy, gave evidence of finding Edgar’s bank book on the Maclaggan street steps. , Detective J. Gibson said that when Gordon was approached by the police he denied knowledge of the assault, and said ho was “ always the one to get the blame.” He had £2 12s 6d on his person. Witness found a dented tin of tobacco under the mattress of the bed in which Gordon had slept on the night of the ..offence. The accused denied that it had been in his possession, and produced a tin of another brand of tobacco, which he said he always smoked: He later admitted that he'had given the lozenge tin containing tobacco to Alfred Wilson. Gordon said he had no recollection of where he got the lozenge tin. Corroborative evidence was given by Constable 11. J. A. Berry, who said that he searched Gordon after the latter had said £2 12s Gd was all the money he had on his person. He found, in his breast pocket, another £1 note, tern in two parts. Gordon said he did not know how it had got there unless he had put it there when ho was drunk. Witness also found two spots of blood on the sleeve of his coat, which the accused attributed to a fight he had had some time before in Maclaggan street. That evidence closed the case for the Crown, and Air Stevens said no evidence would be called for the' defence. The Crown Prosecutor said he did not propose to address the jury again, a decision which Mr Stevens said in opening his address was due to the fact that the case had collapsed right at the beginning. The only evidence that Edgar was robbed was his own statement, and there was no evidence at all that the injuries were inflicted by Gordon. Air Stevens criticised Edgar’s evidence as the evidence of a man who was drunk on the evening of the offence. Gordon also was drunk, and, in fact, everybody at the party was probably so drunk that nobody knew just what was going on. Counsel examined 1 alleged inconsistencies in the evidence, and submitted strongly in a short address that the Crown had produced no real evidence to identify the accused with Edgar’s injuries and loss. The jury took Ho minutes to arrive at its verdict of guilty on the charge of robbery wjth violence, and not guilty on the other two counts.