ALLEGED THEFT OF CARROTS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 19 August 1926, Page 9

ALLEGED THEFT OF CARROTS.

CHARGE AGAINST CANDY. DISMISSED BY MAGISTRATE. The case in which Arthur Gooigo Candy was charged with the theft of carrots valued at 10s, the property of Arthur Langdon, and which was adjourned in order to allow the police to produce evidence in rebuttal of a suggested alibi, came up for further consideration at the Magistrate’s Court at Hawera to-day.

Mr N. H. Moss intimated that he had not closed Ids case. A prospective witness had read an account of the proceedings in the newspaper, and had offered further evidence. After consideration, the Magistrate, Mr J. S. Barton, said it might be well to take the evidence of the police first. Sergeant Henry said that W. Boothby, whom Thomas Corrigan said was with him in the waggon on July 22, had made a statement. Mr Moss objected to reference to the terms of Bootbby’s statement before the latter appeared in the box, as it had not been made in the presence of defendant.

The Magistrate said the police had the right to indicate the lines their case would take, but Mr Moss might be assured that no injustice would bo done to an accused man.

William Boothby said he knew Arthur Candy, who had been charged with, the theft' of carrots. Witness occupied _a farm adjoining that of Thomas Corrigan. On August 4 last witness went to a Lodge meeting at Eltham. Mr Moss objected to the evidence. He suggested that if the police considered they had evidence of perjury against Corrigan they should proceed on different lines.

The Magistrate said the question of perjury had been raised in the case, and warned witness to be careful and accurate in his statements.

The Bench assured itself that Boothby, who was described by Mr Moss as a simple man, understood the necessity of giving his evidence carefully. Sergeant Henry proceeded to examine witness, who deposed that Corrigan said they would go into the Hawera Court and say they had seen. Candy on the road on the night before his sale. Witness said he would. They met Candy on the Normanby Road about 7 o’clock. The day was Thursday. Witness was coming from Manaia. Witness and Corrigan had a bed, a copper, potatoes, and chairs. They left Manaia about 5 o’clock. Tom Corrigan stopped Candy to get matches to light their lamps. Candy was on horseback. They arrived at Tirimoana a little after 9*o’clock. On July 22 witness went from Tirimoana on horseback to Manaia. They left for Manaia at about 10 a.m.

Continuing his evidence, W. Boothby said he ancl Corrigan loaded furniture on a waggon at about 3.30. He remembered seeing Constables Tocher and Townsend, and speaking to them in connection with the case. Witness was at a loss to remember what transpired at his interview with the constables. To the Magistrate: Tho police came out and said witness was not telling the truth. He told the constables the same as he had told the Court to-day. He told the police that he was on the road with Tom Corrigan, and that they passed Arthur Candy. The Magistrate: Is what the witness saying radically opposite to the statement he made to the police? The Sergeant: Absolutely, sir. The Magistrate: Will you assure me that you have such a signed statement from the witness? The Sergeant: Yes, sir. The Magistrate: Then you are entitled to make application to crossexamine him as an hostile witness. Do you make application?—Yes, sir. The Sergeant then asked witness if he had signed the statement produced. Witness said he had, and that it was a lie that lie had signed. To the Magistrate: The police frightened him into signing it. They took him off his place, and he thought they were going- to take him away. The Magistrate asked for the statement held by the witness. Witness remembered seeing Mr (Campbell, the .justice of the peace. No mention was made of the statement being made through fright'of the police. To the Magistrate: His age was 19, and he had been educated an the New Zealand schools. The day after he made the statement to the police he wrote a letter to Mr Moss. The Magistrate said that there was nothing in the witness for the police Mr Barton said he knew the police of this district, and knew that they would not use intimidation in getting a statement. To Mr Moss: The police said to witness that if he did not tell tho truth he would got locked up. The Magistrate said witness was like putty, and Mr Moss ceased crossexamining him. The Magistrate said the evidence was losing sight of the original charge. The evidence of the prosecution was very clear. It turned, however, upon identification on a moonlight night by one man. Ho -would, therefore, give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, on the charge of theft, and if the police cared to proceed on other charges dcnce they couhl do so. Short of provdonce they could o so. Short of proving perjury, the police could not make the speaker more dissatisfied with the evidence for the defence.