CASE DISMISSED

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 16 January 1930, Page 2

CASE DISMISSED

ROGUE AND VAGABOND CHARGE ALLEGED PICKLOCK KEY. After hearing lengthy evidence in the Hawera Magistrate’s Court yesterdav afternoon, Mr J. H- Salmon, S M., dismissed a police action against Thomas James, alias Thomas Frederick Perry, a labourer, charged with being a rogue and vagaband, having in Ins possession a picklock key, or liou sebreakiiig implement, accused pleading not guilty. . , On a further charge of having been found drunk, accused pleaded guilty and was convicted and discharged. Mr O’Dea appeared for accused and Sergeant Henry conducted the case for the police. In outlining the case, Sergeant Henrv said that, of recent times in Hawera, there had been quite an epidemic of houses being entered and robbed, but there was no suggestion that accused was the culprit. Constable Donovan said that he had arrested accused for drunkenness and had .found the key in his possession, but accused had denied owning it. On the wav to the station he said that he had some keys that were owned by someone else and wanted to return them. . Answering Mr O’Dea, witness said that accused was well muddled with drink. He then had four keys in his possession, but really was not in a fit state to discuss their ownership. The keys found on accused had been shown to the owner, with the exception of the .skeleton key, which she had not then seen. Witness knew of no dishonest act on accused’s part.

Further evidence was given by Constable Mull an, who said that he had assisted to search accused, the skeleton kev being taken from a side pocket." Accused had denied ever having it- in liis possession. The key was found to unlock the back of the residence whore accused had heen hoarding, while it would also unlock a number of other doors. Chi Tuesday accused’s landlady (Mrs Flyger) had called at the police station and said that the key in question fitted her washhouse door, and added that she had found it among some rubbish. On the Saturday afternoon witness and Detective Meilcleiohn had gone to an hotel and had spoken to accused, who was under the influence of drink. Accused, witness declared, had said that lie had a mind to get a locksmith to make a couple of skeleton keys to “rat” some of the houses in Hawera.

Questioned by Mr O’Dea, witness said that he had taken the remarks seriously and had kept them in the back of his head for. future reference. “But surelv you did not take them seriously.” said Mr O’Dea. “Surely, as a policeman, vou would not take them seriously. You know, once a policeman always a policeman. (Laughter). He was not an expert on locks, proceeded witness, but had once worked in a locksmith’s shop. The key in question was well known as being a skeleton key. It had heen tried on eight or nine locks and had opened six of them. “But vou have keys of your own that will'fit other doors than the ones they belong to.” said Mr O’Dea. “Anyway. I have,” he added. Sergeant Henry gave corroborative evidence of accused's arrest and his landlady’s claim to the key. It was a fact that accused had not been before a court on any charge of dishonesty. Robert L. Ferguson, a mechanic, said that he had had a good deal of experience in locksmith work. The key produced was termed by locksmiths a “pass” key,, but it was commonly known as a skeleton kev. He would undertake to sav that the key would open any lock of a common pattern. . This concluded the police evidence. THE DEFENCE.

Mr O’Dea submitted that accused had served a small term, but there was nothing dishonest known against him. On Ins recent arrival in Rawer a he had stayed with Mrs Flyger and had assisted her to remove from her residence. He was seen to pick up the key during the shifting and did not own it. Accused had been questioned by a detective and a constable when in a half-drunken condition and had made the talk about skeleton keys. Had there been anything serious in the remarks, surely both would have taken some action. There was no reason to suspect that accused had the key in his possession to commit a crime, but the key was owned by his landlady, who had claimed it from the police. Stating that his correct name was Robert Frederick Perrin, accused said that he had boxed under the name of James. He had first arrived in New Zealand in 1910 from Australia and had made several trips backwards and forward since that date, with the exception of a period served at the front. On Saturday last he had been drinking in practically every hotel in town, and had been' approached by Detective Meiklejohn and Constable Mull an. “What was the conversation?” asked Mr O’Dea. “We spoke of several I had met in gaol.” said accused. “Some of them in there were ‘sweet’ with the police and some weren’t, I told them.” Proceeding, accused said that the detective had entered into discussion with him about a certain person being handy with keys for opening odd locks and accused had jokingly remarked that he would like a couple of such keys. On arrival at the police station after being arrested for drunkenness, he was searched and the particular key was found in his possession. However, he had denied owning it. having remembered locking the back door of Mrs Flyger’s residence, the key being her property and given to him to enable him to obtain some belongings left at Mrs Flyger’s late residence. Hugh Roger said that he assisted Mrs Flyger to shift and remembered

accused nutting a number of keys' m bis pocket, these being taken from a small box in the house, and remarking that they were Mrs Flyger’s property. Witness said that he knew on Saturday that accused had keys in his possession that belonged to Mrs Flyger. Evidence was given by Sarah Flyger to the effect that the key in question was one that she had found among some rubbish and she had placed it upon a. shelf in the washhouse and left it there. When witness had seen the key at the police station she had remarked that she thought it was one of her house keys. In a review of the evidence the magistrate said that, under the Police Offences Act, accused would be liable to be convicted as a. 1 rogue and vagabond for having such a key in his possession and to receive up to 12 months’ imprisonment. No doubt accused was found in possession of such a key. hut it was a recent possession and, taking into consideration the full circumstances, ho did not think that accused had the key for any unlawful purpose.