SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 February 1935, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

greymouth sitting. HALL AND JONES SENTENCED. In the Supreme Court at Greymouth, yesterday afternoon, before Mr Justice Johnston, the case was continued in Which William Hall and Arthur Jones were charged with breaking ana entering the dwelling-house of Allen John Pairmaid, High Street, by day, on or about October 21, 1934, 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 dwellingrhouse of Allan John Fairmaid, knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. They were not represented by counsel. Mr F. A. Kitchingham conducted the case for the Crown. The case for the defence was commenced when the Court lesumed. Jones, in evidence, said the keys, found in Nelson, were not in Greymouth, but were found on Mr Duncan’s property at Nelson. One of the keys they made in Nelson was used to enter the brewery. The parcel he received contained clothing he had loaned to Johns while in Greymouth, and did not contain the suit in question. Cross-examined by Mr Kitchingham, defendant said he first met Johns in Christchurch about four years ago, and Johns was in Greymouth at the time defendant was here. . The signature on the consignment note was nor li is At the reqpest of Mr Kitchingham, defendant wrote his signature on a piece of paper, and also the signature “A. Johns.” . Continuing under cross-examination, witness said he met McLean in Hardy Street, Nelson, and it was then that McLean mentioned about having the suit. McLean said he was staying at Seaview boarding house, but witness had left that house at that time. Witness realised that the presence of McLean would clear the matter up, but said he had not had the chance to do anything towards locating McLean, as he had been locked up. Witness admitted that he had not given a description of McLean, but said he had not had a chance to give the description. Witness could not account for the likeness between the signature of Johns and his own signature. Witness went to register at the Labour Bureau, but could not explain that the Bureau had no record of his application. Witness left Greymouth for Westport on November 5. Detective Sinclair did ask witness where McLean could be located, but witness could only tell him that he might be somewhere near Christchurch. Hall said he first saw the blue suit when Jones brought it home on a Friday night about 9.30 o’clqck. .The day previously Jones had told him of a man named McLean, who had a blue suit to sell, and witness had advised him to buy it. None of the keys produced was with witness and his mate in Greymouth. About 12 of the skeleton keys were made at Nelson, but the remainder were found at the brewery. Witness had not ijjet Jones until about four months ago. Witness had not met McLean. He was in Greymouth about 16 days, and did no work, but had lived honestly. The keys made in Nelson were his first attempt. Recalled by accused. Detective Sinclair said there were some keys in the bunch which Duncan said might belong to him, but which he could not identify. His Honor reviewed the evidence at length, and the jury retired at 3.10 p.m. They returned at 3.37 p.m., with a verdict of not guilty to the theft charges, but guilty on the charge of receiving, against both accused.

Asked if he had anything to say, Jones said he was released from a prison camp on August 5, and eventually arrived at Nelson. He could get no work, with the exception of an odd day or 'two, along the road, and committed the theft fit Nelson to get money in an endeavour to get back home to Australia. He asked for a short, hard sentence, and deportation to Australia. Hall Asked the Judge 'to take into consideration the fact that the present was his first offence, and that he had spent two months in custody. Accused, after being found guilty of breaking, entering; and theft from Dodson’s Brewery at Nelson, were remanded to Greymouth for sentence, in conjunction with the hearing of charges preferred against them at Greymouth.

Addressing the prisoners, His Honor said Jones had had a fair number of convictions ana some substantial sentences, and now again he had been house-breaking in Nelson, and had been convicted of receiving! stolen goods at Nelson. His Honor said he did not think ho could send prisoner back to Australia, as he had not a clean record. He would be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Hall, he said, had the advantage of not having any previous convictions against him. It seemed, however, that he was not committing the crimes on impulse or out of necessity, but his possession ot the skeleton keys, together with his proclivity for crime, made it dangerous to leave him at large. He could not extend to Hall the benefit of probation, but would sentence him to one year’s imprisonment, to be followed by one year’s reformative detention. In both cases the sentences would commence from January 31. An order was made for the return of £l7 8/2 to Mr. Duncan, of Dodson’s Brewery, Nelson. ?

DAVIS ACQUITTED. INDECENT LANGUAGE CHARGE. William Davis pleaded not guilty to a charge that on January 1. 193. r >, at Greymouth, he did use indecent language. in a public place, Tainui Street. Mr F. A. Kitchingham cqn- ! ducted the case for the Crown, and Mr J. W. Hannan represented accused. The following common jury was empanelled:—John Allen, George Ralph Harker, Thomas Howard. Nelson Shallcrass, Allan Augustus Adams, Corry Robert Coulson. Alan Bruce Lane. James Hambleton, James Sedgemere 1 Howson, William Hill. William Chefwynd and Richard Morris. Mr Harker was chosen as foreman. On the application of Mr Kitchingham, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. Constable J. McGlynn said that on the morning of January 1. last, he was called to a collision at the corner of Tainui and Guinness Streets. He found a crowd there interfering with

the cars, and they would not keep back. He endeavoured to get the names and addresses of the drivers, and make a sketch, but was pushed and shoved about. Accused walked out to the head of the cars and exclaimed: ‘‘What the hell is wrong here? A nice b mess!” Witness went up to him. as he had made the remarks in a loud voice. Accused became abusive, and said “I haven’t b well done anything. You cannot treat me like that. I’m a respectable member of this b ,town.” Witness had known Davis since he (witness) had been in Greymouth, and had seen accused about the town at all hours of the day and night. His conduct was not at all gentlemanly. At the time in question, accused had no mates with him. When Constable Robinson arrived, witness told the latter that Davis had been hampering him. When the particulars of the accident had been ascertained, witness and Constable Robinson spoke to Davis, who again used further indecent and abusive language. A man named Williams was standing near Davis, urging him on. Witness had repeatedly warned Davis for congregating with other men around corners. Davis had approach witness one night about 10.50 in Mackay Street, with two men named Mclnroe and Hawkins, and said to witness: “You were pretty slick sticking that ‘bluey’ into me. 1 won’t forget it.” Witness had warned Davis on various occasions. He had known accused since he (witness) arrived in Greymouth, having stayed with him in the same hotel for five days. Cross-examined by Mr Hannan witness said that when he asked the crowd to move back he did not see Davis. He first knew Davis was there when he stepped out from the crowd. Witness did not attempt to put an arm lock on Davis, nor did he try to draw his baton on Davis. He did not know why the crowd hooted, unless they thought he was trying to draw his baton, when he put his hand in his hip pocket for his note-book. He could not account for the fact that his notes about the motor accident, and the notes of the language used by Davis. were in different sections of the book. He made his notes about the accident at the time, but did not make the other notes until later, at the police-station. He had warned Davis on numerous occasions, but could not mention any particular occasion or place he had warned him. He did not know that he was known in Greymouth, as the “moving cop.” .He could not recall asking a man

named McEnaney, a man on crutches, to move on ?n the street, the other day. Witness arrived in Greymoutli on November 25. He could not .recall warning Davis the first time. He had known Davis since November 25, and stayed in the Club Hotel with him for the first live days. Mr Hannan intimated that he was calling evidence to show that Davis was in Blenheim from November 17 to December 11, so that witness could not have stayed with him in the same hotel.

Witness said he had not seen accused with Williams until the night in question, and even, then did not know whether Williams was actually in the company of Davis. Witness was not in an excitable mood on the night in question. He remembered the Municipal Band concert in the Town Hall, but did not say to the doorkeeper, “If you have any trouble send for me, and I’ll fire them out!” Constable G. J. Robinson said he came to tlfe car collision some time after Constable McGlynn, who was then making enquiries. McGlynn said to witness that there was a man there who had been obstructing .him, and using the language. Together, they went to Davis, who when questioned about language, said, “I didn’t use any b language. Don’t try to put that over me.” The expressions were used several times in the hearing of the crowd. Williams was there too, and shouted out, “That’s right, Bill. You didn’t use any language. I’ll bo a witness for you.” Williams appeared to be intoxicated, but Davis was sober. To Mr Hannan: Witness and Constable McGlynn made, the notes together, at the station. Witness did not think Constable McGlynn knew Davis on the night in question. Witness had been in Greymouth for seven years and had not had any trouble with accused.

CASE FOR DEFENCE. Davis said he was 28 years of age, and had not been before the Court before. He had not spoken to Constable McGlynn prior to January 1. He had been a boarder for some years at the Club Hotel, but was in Blenheim from November 17 until December 11. His father lived in Blenheim, and it was on account of his father’s illness that he went to Blenheim. Witness knew Williams by sight and to speak to, but did not associate with him. On the morning, of January 1, witness arrived at the scene of the accident about 3.40 o’clock, and was among the crowd standing around the cars. He denied using the language in the charge. Before Constable Robinson came along there was no mention of bad language. The constable came up to witness, and grabbing him by the arm, with both hands, threw witness back across the road. Witness remonstrated with him, and the constable said he would run witness in. to which witness replied that he could not do that as he (witness) had done nothing.

To Mr Kitcliingham: He did not say to Constable Robinson, on the corner of Tainui and Mackay Streets, on February 5. “That is a nice thing that has been put over me. If he’s not careful he’ll be up for perjury. Wait till I get him with his blue coat off:” Witness did not hear anyone use language similar to that, in the charge. Witness thought Constable McGlynn would trump up a charge to send a man to gaol. Witness did net use tiie language complained of on the occasion when both constables approached him. All he said was: “You can’t put that over me." Athol Adams, electrician, of'Greymouth, said he was not a personal friend of Davis, but knew him well by sight. Witness was about six or eight feet away from Davis, and saw the constable grab Davis by the arm. He saw the constable put his hand in his hip pocket, and the crowd then starred talking loudly and generally making a noise. The constable left Davis to chase the crowd back, and then went to the cars. Witness did not hear the language complained of Witness did not hear the constable say he would arrest Davis. To Mr Kitcliingham: Witness was there when Constable McGlynn arrived. He did not see Davis arrive.

Alfred Kilgour, jnr.. said that on tiie morning of January 1, he was present at the scene of the accident when Constables McGlynn and Robinson came up to Davis. Witness was about three or four yards away from Davis and the constables, and did not hear any bad language use. All he

heard Davis say was: "You can’t call my bluff,” or words to that effect. His Honor, reviewing the evidence, said it was a peculiar case. Accused had taken the stand that his story and only his was correct, but he did not think there was anything in Hie case which justified accused’s statement that Hie constable would "frame" him. It was hard to believe that the constable had invented th£ first part of the story, and the second part was corroborated in every detail by the other constable. He (the Judge) considered the jury might disregard the charge as it referred to the second occasion accused was alleged to have used the language, as he had been called to the side of the road by the constables, and it was more of a private interview. He was not impressed with the evidence of Adams, and the words stated by Hie witness Kilgour to have been used by accused, were not mentioned by cither the constables or accused.

The jury retired at 5.20 p.m.. ami after a retirement of 15 minutes, re-

turned with a verdict of not guilty Accused was discharged.