SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 February 1935, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH TWO CRIMINAL CASES The Greymouth Supreme- Court Session was commenced this morning, before His Honor, Mr Justice Johnston. There is a light list, including only two criminal cases. The following Grand Jury was empannelled: James Kyle, Eric Moss, William Bruce Cunningham, John Martin Bunt, Ernest Warnes, Thomas Crankshaw, Thomas Albert William Tate, Eric Souter, George Weaver, William Frederick Harley, John Henry North, Frederick Murray, Henry Gray Dixon, Alfred Ernest Kilgour. Harry John Digby James, Arthur Edward Prince, James Edgar McKeefry, Leonard McGlhshan, Stanley Francis White, Thomas George Jones, Walter Leslie Gittos, Hyde Herring and Robert Nelson Anderson. Mr Bunt was chosen as foreman. In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honor said there were only two indictments to which the jury have to give their attention. One was an indictment, charging a man named Davis with using indecent language, and the other an indictment against two men who had apparently x heen working in concert. The second indictment was on two counts: (1) qjhat they broke and entered and stole property; and (2) that they, received a man’s suit, knowing the / same to have been dishonestly obtained. That was to say, there were only three persons concerned, and considering the importance and the size of the district, he felt he could say with justification, that that showed an absence of crime, for which the district was to be congratulated. Of course, there were many cases which were dealt with in the Lower Court, and which did not come to the Supreme Court, but. at the same time, it was very satisfactory to find only two cases. He had read the depositions in both cases, and felt that the Grand Jury would have no difficulty in coming to a decision. Both cases were of importance. They knew perfectly well how prevalent breaking and entering could be, if not stopped, and how easily it could remain undetected, and the consequences of such a crime remaining undetected. The other question, said His Honor, was one of indecent language. There again, the question for the Grand Jury was to decide whether the'rd were sufficient grounds for the charge. Despite the fact that a great number of people did oh occasions use indecent and obscene language, the circumstances in which the language was used were the supreme test. The jury should not think it was not a matter of importance, for the consequences would be most serious, if people were allowed to go about the streets using obscene and indecent language as they pleased. In that particular 'crime it was not. a matter of how many people heard it, hut of whether it was used. . The Grand Jury returned after a retirement of about half an hour, with true bills in birth cases. His Honor thanked the jurors for their services.

NOT GUS.LTY PLEA

The first case called was that against William Hall and Arthur Jones, who were charged with breaking and entering' the dwelling-house of Allen John Fairmaid, High Street, by day, on or about October 21, ( T 934 and stealing a silver double-cased English watch, a lady’s gold . wristlet watch, a gold stud, and a navy blue serge suit, of the total value of £l7/10/-. Accused were further charged that, on October 21, 1934, at Greymouth, they did receive one navy blue suit before then stolen from the dwelling-house of. Allan John Fairmaid, knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. Both pleaded not guilty to both charges. They were not represented by.counsel. Mr. F. A. Kitchingham conducted the case for The following were chosen as the common jury: Edmund Stratford, Robert Henry, Gustav Theodore Schaef, 1 Hugh Charles McKenzie, John Dunn, Alexander Cox, Robert Dixon, Cecil Graham Anderson, Uriah John Mettrick, Joseph Percy Hewison. John Francis Laing, William Greenhill senr. Mr. Stratford was chosen as foreman. The prosecution ordered six jurors to stand down, and the defence challenged two jurors. Allan. John Fairmaid said that he left home for Nelson on October 19. He locked the doors and windows of the house before leaving. The articles mentioned in the charge were in the house when he left for Nelson and no one had authority to enter the house during his absence. He returned, on October 22, and found the back door closed, but unlocked. The articles mentioned in the charge were missing. Witness identified the suit produced as hts. Witness did not know either of the accused. , , .. George Kear, of Greymouth, tailor, said the suit produced was made in his shop, about the end of 19.—. ine measurements were checked over, and it was found that the' waist measurement had been reduced. The tag healing his name had been removed. The suit looked to him to have been made bv Mr O’Farrell, an emplojee ol his, and'on the inside of the sleeve lining there was found the word Fairinaid. in Mr. O’Farrell’s handwi itmg. Phe buttons had witness’s name on them, thev being specially made for him. Patrick Vincent O’Farrell, coat-hand emploved bv Mr. Kear, said the coat was his workmanship, and nised the trousers and vest as article made in Mr. Kear’s workship. All coats made by him bore the name of the owner on the inside of the sleeve linings, as in the case of the suit proJames Duncan Hearne, railway clerk. said that in October a parcel consigned to R. J- I ‘ s ’ Christchurch, was handed in. The . signment note produced was m witness’s handwriting, except the signature of the consigner. Detective F. Sinclair, of said he arrested the accused at Nelson, and at the time Jones was wealing the coat produced. Jones claimed the whole of the suit produced. Jones said he got the suit from Auckland. Witness sent the suit to Greymouth for identification and again "iterviewed the accused on January 19, and told them the suit had been identified as one taken from Mr. Fairmaid s house. Jones said he could prove it came from Auckland. Jones admitted

that he had rebe'ived a parcel from Greymouth; through Christchurch, under the name of Fisher, from a man named “Johns.” There was a suggestion of alterations to the trousers, and witness found that they had been altered by a Nelson tailor for the accused, Jones having handed the trousers over. Jones admitted that the trousers were taken to the Nelson tailor to be altered, but said he bought them from a man in Nelson, who said they came from Auckland. Hall said he could prove where Jones got it from, and immediately turned to Jones and asked which suit it was. Told by Jones that it was the blue suit, Hall said he knew Jones bought it from a man in Nelson, but was not there when the suit was bought. Witness had since learned that Jones in the Lower Court, said that he had bought it from a man named McLean, from Auckland, who was staying at Seaview boarding house. Enquiries elicited the fact that no man named McLean had stayed at Seaview boarding house, nor at two other boarding houses in Nelson during the past 12 months. When charged with the theft, Jones said nothing, but Hall said, “They have nothing on us.” Certain keys were found by witness in the bush on Botanical Hill. On examining the keys, Hall said the ones produced were his, and the otheis belonged to Dodson’s brewery. He admited hiding the and Jones admitted that he had had the keys in his possession and that he had made some of the keys in Nelson. Hall admitted helping Jones. One key (produced) was an old key converted to a master key, and it fitted the lock on the back door of Mr. Fairmaid s house. Jones had admitted to witness that at Wanganui on September 1, 1930, he was convicted of theft; that on June 12, 1931, he had been convicted of theft and a breach of probation; that on June 8, 1932. he was convicted on seven charges of theft; and that on August 16, 1932, he had been convicted of receiving stolen property and house-breaking and theft. The accused were arrested on another charge in Nelson, Jones having £ll/0/6 in his possession, and admitted that £7 of it had been stolen from' the safe in Dodson’s brewery in Nelson. Hall, who had £6/12/1 in his possession; admitted that £o/l /- came from the brewery safe. Witness produced a signature made by Jones, and said, in his opinion, it compared exactly with the signature on the parcol Constable D. N. McDonald said he ■ saw the accused together in Mackay Street at 9.30 p.m. on October 30 last

year. r Plain-Clothes Constable E, J. C. Hay said he examined Mr Fairmaid’s house and found no signs of a forced entry. On October 29. he interviewed the accused. and both denied knowledge ol the offence. A statement he took from them showed that they had arrived in Grevmouth together on October -t, and had been there until October 29. Witness weighed the coat and vest of the suit produced and found it was four pounds, and the consignment note showed a weight of four pounds. M i - boss had been stationed in Greymouth for 11 years, and knew no one by the name of “A. Johns” in the district. His opinion of the handwriting was that the signature of A. Jones on the statement made to him, was the same writing as in the signature “A. Johns on the consignment note. To the accused Jones, witness said he weighed only the coat and rest, as the trousers were in Nelson then. It was probable that the trousers v.eie not sent in the parcel. This closed the case for the Crown, and the Court adjourned for lunch.