MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 May 1944, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ATTEMPTED THEFT CHARGE. Before Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, this morning, Michael James Leonard, 52, married Railways Department porter, was charged that at Greymouth on May 6 he attempted to steal one leather suitcase and its contents, of a total value of £lO, the property of Patricia Kiely. Accused was represented by Mr. W. D. Taylor, and Senior-De-tective H. E. Knight conducted the prosecution. At the conclusion of the evidence accused pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with by a jury. He was committed to the Supreme Court at Greymouth for trial, bail being allowed in self £5O and one surety of £5O. . _ ± Opening the case, Senior Detective Knight said that about 5 a.m. on May 6 Miss Patricia Kiely arrived by the “perishable” goods train at Greymouth from Christchurch. There was an unusually large number of passengers on the train on account of the school holidays and the transport available by way of cars and taxis was .overtaxed. Miss Kiely secured a lift to her home, but as the car was overcrowded she left her suitcase at the station to be called for later in the day. The suitcase had a leather address label on it and on the card in the label were the words “Miss P. Kiely,” but the rest of the address was indecipherable. She was given formal permission to leave the case in the porters’ room as the usual luggage rooms were not .open, but the guard of the train warned her' that luggage was left in the porters’ room at the risk of the owner. About 11.30 a.m. on the same day Miss Kiely s father went to the station to secure the suitcase, but it could not. be found. As a result of his enquiries he went to the Railway Hotel and asked accused, who was there, if he had seen the case, but accused denied that he had seen or knew anything about it Subsequently Kiely received further information, as a result of which he went to accused’s home and saw the suitcase in the hall inside the back door. He took possession of the case, which, with its contents, was intact. When witness came to make enquiries he interviewed accused on May 10, when he made a statement, which appeared to be quite feasible, but he (Mr. Knight) ‘intended to bring witnesses to prove that the statement was incorrect.

The following evidence was called: Miss Patricia Kiely, student, of Greymouth, gave evidence on the lines of the Senior Detective’s statement regarding her leaving the case at the Greymouth railway station on the arrival of the ChristchurchGreymouth “perishable” train shortly after 5 a.m. The case (produced) was her property. She asked the guard of the train, who was in the porters’ room, if she could leave the case and she left it in that room, with his consent. She valued the case and the contents at at least £lO. The case and the contents were in order when recovered.

Thomas Kiely, father of the previous witness, gave evidence that he called at the railway station shortly before noon on the same day to pick up the suitcase. The case could not be located. As a result of information given him he went to the Railway .’Hotel and saw accused, who denied seeing or knowing anything about the case. Witness continued U’s enquiries and saw accused in Tainui Street going in the direction oi ms home and carrying a suitcase, which, however, was not his daughter's. Witness went to the home of a man named Mulroy, and from what he told witness he went to accused’s home. In the passage inside the back door he saw his daughter’s suitcase. He did not see accused, but took possession of the case. It was then about 12.40 p.m. While witness was away looking for the case a message) was received at his house that the case was at' accused’s home. To Mr. Taylor: Witness knew the accused quite well. Accused did not have a bicycle'when witness saw him in Tainui Street about 12.15 p.m. The message was left at witness’ home by accused’s son about 12.30 p.m. Ernest Percival Greenwood, railways guard, corroborated the evidence of Miss Kiely about her leaving the suitcase in the porters’ room. Witness explained to her that when the luggage rooms were not open luggage was occasionally left in the porters’ room at the risk of the owner. He recognised the case produced, which was in the porters’ room when he went off duty. To Mr. Taylor: The porters’ room was open 24 hours of the day except Sundays, but at night the man. on duty might be away from the room at different times Lor up to a quarter of an hour. ACCUSED’S STATEMENT. Senior Detective Knight gave evidence that he saw accused on May 10 and in consequence of witness's Questioning him in regard to the suitcase he made a signed statement .(produced). In the course of this statement accused said that on May 6 he commenced duty at 5 a.m., and had with him a small blue suitcase in which he carried cleaning materials for cleaning the railcars. On his way up to the station from Elmer Lane, where he had cleaned the railcar, he called at his home and picked up a larger brown suitcase, in which he intended to place the weekend groceries. He put his small case in his locker,. No. 1, when he reached the porter'’ room and left the other one beside the locker. He did his shopping during the morning and about 11.30 a.m., went to the Railway Hotel with his two cases. He had meat for his dinner in the larger suitcase and he asked a man named Mulroy to take the case home for him, which Mulroy did. Then Kiely, whom he had known for about 15 years, came to see him about a suitcase of his daughter’s and he (witness) told him ho had not seen it. Witness later left to go to the railway station to get his bicycle and recalled seeing a suitcase on a seat in the waiting room. He went to see if the case was still there. It was and had Miss Kiely’s name on it. He look it homo and sent his son to advise Kiely that he had the case at his home. He did not take the case with the intention of stealing it and had no knowledge of it when Kiely asked him about it in the hotel. Continuing his evidence, witness said he made further investigations and on May 13 saw accused Ait the Greymouth railway station, and in the porters’ room he produced to witness’ the case which he said he had sent home with Mulroy on May 6. While the case was of somewhat similar size to the case owned bv Miss Kiely it was a paper fibre case not- of the same colour and not resembling Miss Kiely’s case. Robert Douglas Culley, railways porter, at Greymouth., said that on May G he saw the suitcase (produced) An the porters’ room about 9.15 a.m. He saw the name Kiely on the label.

Herbert Mulroy, labourer, of Greymouth, said he was in the Railway Hotel on May 6 having a couple of drinks and saw accused come'in the front door with two cases, on« smaller than the other. He asked witness to take a suitcase home for him and he would “shout” for witness. Witness said he would take the case home for him for a shilling. Witness took the larger case for accused and nut it on accused’s back verandah. The case (produced) was the one witness took home for accused. Witness got home about 12.40 p.m., after leaving the case. It would take him five minutes to get

home from accused’s place. To Mr. Taylor: The only times he had seen the suitcase since May .6 were when the detective showed it (o him at Victoria Park' and again to-day. That was the only case he was shown. He did not _ take any particular notice of the suitcase when he took it to accused’s place. John Joseph Earl, railways shunter, at, Greymouth, said that about noon on May 6 he was' in Mr. Canter’s rooms overlooking Tainui Street, and saw Mulroy passing Revingtons Hotel going south. Mulroy was carrying a tan coloured suitcase similar to the one produced. On the morning of May 13 he was in the norters’ room and saw a suitcase on the top of No. 1 locker, but it was not the case Mulroy was carrying on May 6. The one in the porters’ room then was a paper fibre case, very light, coloured, and definitely not tan. To Mr. Taylor: He was prepared to swear that the case Mulroy carried was of leather. Ronald John Williams, a miner, of Greymouth, said he resided at the Railway Hotel. On May 6, at about 11.30 a.m., witness was in the hotel and saw accused and Mulroy there. He heard the conversation between the two men about a suitcase, and Mulroy said he would carry it home for a shilling. Accused threw a shilling to Mulroy. He saw Mulroy leave with .a suitcase. The'case produced was the one Mulroy carried.