SUPREME COURT NAPIER.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 164, 28 June 1911, Page 11

SUPREME COURT NAPIER.

TUESDAY, JUNE 27th. On resuming after lunch the examination of Kathleen O’Brien was continued. Skelton had said if it was her bike she could take it. She had informed the police of her loss four days afterwards. She identified the bicycle in court. To Mr. Dolan: She had the maI chine for four months, but did not

know the number of the bicycle. She saw accused about 6 p.m. in ! Heretaunga street, the main street !of Hastings. It was broad daylight. Mrs. Skelton and Miss Sul- ■ livan were also present when she 1 and Constable Dwyer spoke to ■ Skelton. She had not noticed if J Constable Dwyer took out his note | book or not, but she remembered | something about a piece of paper i and a number. 1 John Farrelly, a settler, helped I his son iit the cycle shop in Hastings, and had from time to time sold machines. He had sold the bicycle produced to Miss O’Brien’s mother.' Since sale it had been frequently in the shop for repairs. Constable Dwyer said he has ! asked Shelton if the. bicycle belonged to him. and accused replied that it did, and that he had bought it from a man in the street about a week ago for £2. Miss O’Brien

identified the bicycle at once as Ik rs. Skelton said ” is that your bicycle. Miss ? it is a funny thing the man said it was his. rtow do I get on for my £2 • They went to accused's house, but could not find the receipt. Upon previouslyvisiting accused’s place he found no one at home, but saw a geuf.’s bicycle in a sh; <i resembling one stolen. Whet- speaking to accused ir: Heretaunga street be denied that there win- any (fiber bicycle at bis place, but later said he had one th which had been given .to him to paint. Witness took Lolh l‘ic\ch'-s away. (>:i a lai er «>«castoti accused said lie Lad bought i Im lady 's bicy-le from a man in the street. Toe man came to his Imtise. and '.v it'r gave him the money, which tm over for the ma-iiinc. .Mr. Dolan moss-examined witness on details. Detective Butler gave evidence corroborating Constable Dwyer’s. J Thr- coiii-hided the evidence for ;!■■■ Crown, ami Mr. Dolan briefly opened for fin- defence, saying lie was merely going to put the acCtrmil and his wife in the box. i-'rank Oakley .Skelton said he was a signwriter, and had been 12 years in Hastings and 37 years in Hawke’s Bay. At one time he had a bicycle shop in conjunction with a saddlery business. Of the

machines in court, he first came by the gentleman’s bike. He was in the Albion Hotel one day with his paint brushes in his hand, when a man asked him to paint a bicycle. He agreed to do so, and they had several drinks on thg subject. They took the bike home, but no business was done that day beyond instructions to paint the machine. The man, however, never turned up again, and in the meantime he had made use of the machine. Part of the time the machine was on his front verandah and part in the shed. He had had the lady’s bicycle _,about three months when | the constable spoke to him. He got the bicycle from a man he met in the street. The man asked him if he wanted a bicycle, and witness replied that it all depended upon price. ' The price was eventually fixed at £2, and they went along to witness’s house, where the money was paid and the receipt (produced) given. He frequently rode the lady’s bike about the streets. His t wife, Misses O’Brien and Sullivan, the constable, and himself were all present at the interview in Heretaunga street. Miss' O’Brien claimed the bike, go he gave it up. After taking the lady’s bike, Constable Dwyer said, “Have you any more bikes you have stolen?” and witness replied “No.” The constable said, “What about the one in your shed ?” ■ Witness

explained, and Constable Dwyer took it away. Constable Dwyer did not give him time to find the receipt for the lady’s bike at first, as they were all packed up and on The accused was cross-examined by Mr. Cornford at considerable length without any fresh facts being elicited.

Edith Skelton, wife ol the accused. deposed that she had been married for about 12 years, and bad six children. Remembered Mr. Butler coming down investigating about machines. Before, Butler called the lady’s bicycle was. in the house for about three wei ks. The bike came into her hiisbamlb i-fbssession one night when a man called who wished to S' 1! it for £2. The accused came m. and asked her for the money. dCm ss gave him £2, and a few minutes later lie asked fur pen, ink and paper. Remembered no ccnvTrsation. The stranger who wished to sell the bicycle was a respectable looking young fellow. Saw ; he bicycle that afternoon. It was kept for a long time in different parts of the house. The man s bicycle, produced, had been m f he house for a long titue, and had been used by her husband and her little son. There was some difficulty in finding the receipt as the furniture had been packed up. To Mr. Lusk: ijie had been

treasurer for the house since their marriage. She passed to her husband a writing pad, pen and ink. The handwriting was that of her husband (this was the duplicate of a receipt written in the Court by the accused). Mr. Dolan in his address to the jury said that if they found the accused ’guilty there were the i offences of perjury and forgery to be added. * The argument from the crumpling of the paper was of no value, as Detective, Butler had admitted carrying it B about in his pocketbook. The* guilt of the accused, if it could be proved, was only on circumstantial evidence. This, had hanged many men and sent innocent people to the prison cells. During the time that the accused had. the bicycle he had not painted, in fact, if he had wished he could have painted and altered them out of recognition. The slight contradictions in the evidence counted for nothing. Mr. Dolan did not think that they could find him guilty under the circumstances. ( Mr. Cornford, for the prosecution, stated that perjury was an everyday occurrence. The tetnptat ion for a witness to tell untruths was very great. The appearance of the evidence was very suspicioqs. The tendency of a wife in the witness box was to

commit perjury for ner husband’s sake. Circumstantial evidence was absolutely necessary in proving crime. An offence was very- rarely- seen. A few facts could be proved, and the links would have to be inferred. If this were not allowed, the world would be full of criminals.

Justice Chapman said to the jury that the bicycles were undoubtedly stolen, and these were both in the accused's possession. If a man is found in charge of a bicycle that has -recently been stolen he is •required to give an intelligible and a probable explanation as to how he got it. When a man is therefore charged with an offence such as this one the onus of proving how he obtained it bos to a certain extent on him. The fact of his giving away the bicycle when he was asked for it in so ready a fashion as he did was a circumstance that would have to be considered. The question of the receipt was of great importance. If the receipt had been concocted they would, have to compare it with the copy. They must compare the copy and, the original, word by word and letter by letter. The evidence of a wife was not equal in value to that of a perfectly unbiassed witness. The story- of the witness was vague and improbable.'