MAIL VAN ROBBERY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 16 December 1927, Page 9

MAIL VAN ROBBERY.

FOSTER, ACQUITTED. JURY’S PROMPT DECISION. (Y CABLE—PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT. Received 1.55 p.m. to-day. LONDON, Dee. 15. The Foster case in Old Hailey lias ended. The jury interrupted counsel’s speech for the defence, saying that they had made up their minds, but would like, to hear the summary up of the judge who said that there was little doubt Tlliait Foster could have been the thief, but the law insisted that the crime must lie proved. The case could not be stopped unless the jury was unanimous. The jury retired ior five minutes iaai,d then returned with a verdict of not guilty. Foster had previously given evidence that ho was a New Zealander.. His father was a clergyman who died in 1925, while his mother and sisters were still living in Hamilton. He went to Britain in 1911 and lived at' Merthyr Tydfiln. He was engaged in bookmaking under the name of Roberts ami in football betting under the name of Thomas. By February ho had accumulated £l,lOO and went to London to open if, starting price office. He travelled from Cardiff alone and denied knowledge of the, robbery. He subsequently decided to go to New Zealand with Iris wife and family. On Ills arrival at Auckland he discovered that the police were inquiring for him. He adniitite 1 that he had not told the New Zealand police that he obtained the money in successful betting. The best counsel in New Zealand had advised him not to make a .statement. He was anxious to face the charge and not. to raise bis defence .in New Zealand to prevent publicity for life people’s sake. Cross-examined he said lie had opened a banking account with bank notes which were Changed from treasury notes in order to start, business. He denied that ho feared the use of treasury notes would arouse suspicion.