Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THEFT-CHARGES • DISMISSED The hearing of charges against Michael Canice Rooney, of Blackball, and his wife, Elva Mary Rooney, both of whom pleaded not guilty, that on or about October 29, 1924, they did steal one pot, two rugs, two dinner plates, one dessert plate, two saucers, and one wash-board, of a total value of £2/4/-, the property of Ernest William Riddiford, was continued yesterday afternoon, before Mi 1 . H. Morgan, S.M. Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle conducted the prosecution, and Mr. M. B. James represented defendants. The case for the prosecution and the evidence of defendant, Michael Rooney, were published in the “Star” of yesterday. Elva Mary Rooney said she understood, with her husband, that the articles in the sideboard were Riderford’s and were not to be used. The door of the sideboard used to fly open frequently, but witness did not use anything that was in the sideboard. Riddiford gave witness and her husband the rugs, and also the use of a blue enamel teapot, and-a jug. Two cracked cups on the sideboard were thrown out. Riddiford came up to the house one day prior to witness and her husband receiving a summons, and shifted, some articles from the hut next door’into , the wash-house. He said he wa.s going to. lock the door, but witness went and brought her husband, who prevented Riddiford locking the door. Witness had a dozen large plates, of two different brands, but she did not recall exactly where she bought them. It was when Riddiford had put a rumour round that witness and her husband had stolen the rugs, that she decided to wash the rugs and send them back. When the constable asked witness about the crockery he did not specify any particular pieces. She had bought crockery at John Burns’ in .Greymouth last Christmas, and told that to the constable. Riddiford mentioned when the house was being searched that witness might have hidden some of the articles, so she turned out everything in the house for the policemen to search. To the Senior-Sergeant: Witness was in the house about 18 months, but did not look in the sideboard. The door came open very .frequently, but she did not even know there was crockery in the sideboard.

To the S.M.: Mrs Rooney re-iterated that she did not know there was crock-i ery in the sideboard, and that she had hot even looked in the sideboard. The S.M. said his experience would not allow him to believe the latter statement. Summing up the evidence, the S.M. said a charge of theft was a grave charge to bring against anyone, and like all criminal charges, had to be • proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The crockery allegedly stolen was all of a common type, that could be bought anywhere, and Riddiford did not have any private mark by which he could identify the crockery as his, he relying solely on a comparison with samples of his own crockery. In the case of the crockery, he thought it would be risky, in the absence of any private mark, and especially as the crockery was of a common type, to draw the conclusion that the accused had stolen the crockery. The circumstances were certainly suspicious, but not altogether unusual, and so far as the crockery was concerned, he felt he could not rightfully convict where there was a reasonable doubt that it might belong to the accused. The same thing applied to the pot, which was a common type. The washboard showed that it had been in use for some considerable time, coinciding with the evidence of defendants that they had had it since they were married. Some doubt was also created by the evidence that Duggan took a washboard from among Riddiford’s things in the hut, next to defendants’ place, and he felt he could not convict defendants of stealing the washboard. It was a common type of washboard, and there was nothing unusual about it by which Riddiford could identify it. The only remaining articles were the two rugs, which the accused maintained were given to them. There was an inconsistency in the fact that when the defendants were accused of stealing the rugs, they did not assent their right to them, but said they would wash the rugs, and send them back. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that the accused thought they would give them back rather than have trouble, even though Riddiford had given the rugs to them, and that in order to save anyone saying that they sent them back dirty, they decided to wash them first. In any case, why did Riddiford leave the rugs in the place, when he took all the other bed clothes and blankets away? , It was reasonable to conclude that he gave them to the accused, who were in poor circumstances. He was not satisfied that the case had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and the charges would be dismissed.

CIVIL CLAIMS. The fortnightly civil sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, at Greymouth, was. held this morning, before Mr H. Morgan, S.M. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following debt cases: — Runanga Borough Council v. George Kendrick £l/17/9, costs 8/-; Canterbury Drivers’ and Related Trades’ Industrial Union of Workers v. S. B. Hammersley £l/.0/6, costs 13/-; Wild and Robertson v. M. Donaldson £5/3/- costs £l/10/6; T. A. Tate v. John Ross £l/2/6, costs 8/-; Grey Borough Council v. R. J. McGurk £3 16/4, costs £l/3/6; ' Runanga Borough Council v. Andrew Wright £3 1/4, costs £l/3/6. On judgment summonses: D. J. Frankpitt was ordered to pay £3 13/- to.T. A. Tate, within 14 days, in default' 4 clays’ imprisonment; S. Hammersley was ordered to pay to J. Owen £6/15/6 and 15/6 solicitor’s fee, within 21 days, in default 7 days’ imprisonment; Thomas Currie was ordered to pay to Eleanor Reid £34 3/6, and £l/11/6 solicitor's fee, within one week, in default 30 days’ imprisonment; T. Anderson was ordered to pay. £B/12/- and solicitor’s fee 10/6 to Leach Bros, forthwith, in default 10 days’ imprisonment; Frederick McGrath was ordered to pay to Mary Heaphy £22/4/-, and solicitor’s fee £l/11/6, forthwith, in default 24 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as defendant pays 12/6 a week, the first payment to be made on December 21; Francis George Cooper was ordered to pay £43/6/6 and solicitor’s fee £l/11/6, to the Premier Tobacco Coy., of New Zealand Limited (in liquidation), by instalments of 10/- per week, the first payment on December 28; J. F. Warren was ordered to pay to Furniss and Spinks 10/-, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19341218.2.19

Bibliographic details

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 December 1934, Page 5

Word Count
1,104

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Greymouth Evening Star, 18 December 1934, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Greymouth Evening Star, 18 December 1934, Page 5