NOT GUILTY VERDICT

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 October 1939, Page 12

NOT GUILTY VERDICT

ALLEGED THEFT OF RING WELLINGTON, October 18. After a retirement of 85 minutes the jury in the Supreme Court, Wellington, to-day, returned a verdict of not guilty in the case of William Alexander Thomson, a labourer and showman, 29, and Edward George Valentine Roberts, a salesman and showman, 34. They were jointly charged, before Mr. Justice Blair, with the theft of a diamond cluster ring valued at £l2, the property of Leslie McNee Wilson. The offence was alleged to have been committed in Wellington on August 22. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. W. H. Cunningham) prosecuted, and Mr. J. B. Yaldwyn appeared for the two accused. The evidence would show, said Mr. Cunningham, that the actual taking of the ring was done by Thomson; but it was alleged that Roberts assisted him. Wilson had a diamond cluster for which he had paid £l9, and on August 22 he placed the ring in pawn. He subsequently met the two accused in the public bar of the Hotel St. George. Thomson asked if he had a “spark” for sale, and at noon Wilson returned to the bar with the ring. It was alleged that Thomson handled the ring, and said he would take it to another bar, where he had a prospective buyer. Wilson was about to accompany Thomson when Roberts suggested that he should remain and have another drink. Roberts later left the public bar, and when Wilson went to look for the two accused they had disappeared. He met them on subsequent occasions; but was told that Thomson did not have the ring. . When interviewed, said Detective McPhee, Thomson told him that some mug in the bar of the St. George Hotel said he had a “spark in Moscow” (meaning in pawn). Thomson added that he had a look at the “spark,” which was small and worth only 50/-. When asked if it was “hot,” Wilson told the accused that it was his own. When the man said he wanted £lO Cor it, Thomson gave him the ring back, and told him to “stick to it.” Detective McPhee added that he told accused that he was not obliged to make a statement, to which he replied: “That mug’s got nothing on me. I never took his ring.” The defence was a denial of the allegation, and in his address to the jury Mr. Yaldwyn submitted that, under cross-examination, Wilson was doubtful as to whether Thomson had the ring when he left the bar. There were facts. Mr. Yaldwyn added, that must inevitably raise doubts in the minds of the jury, and in the case of Roberts there was even more doubt. Both accused were discharged.