CHARGES OF THEFT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1888, 12 August 1920, Page 5

CHARGES OF THEFT.

FOUR MISSING BICYCLES,

Five charges of theft wore preferred against William Woolley in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before Ms Honour, Mr Justice Cliupmdn. Four of the charges were for the theft of bicycles as follow;—On January 21 at Palmerston North did steal a bicycle, the property of George Richard Hansen: on April 10 at Feililing did steal a bicycle, the property of the Fabling Farmers’ Freezing Company; on June 18 at Palmerston North did steal a bicycle, the property of Poland Lindsay Campbell Aitchison; on Juno IS •it, Pending did steal a bicycle, the property of Antonio Zuppicich. The fifth charge was that on Juno 19 at, Palmerston North ho did steal an overcoat, the pro perry of Thomas Keane. Mr F. 11. Cooke conducted the prosecution for the Crown and Mr M. 11. Oram appeared for accused. Ihe jury war, composed of the following’ Messrs J. Davidson, G. Brock, S. Kilgour, A. Akers. M. Johnston, 11. N. Soroggs, D. Clarke, J. Manning, D. P. Jones, 11. R. Smith, W. 11. Ward and G. Cope. The hearing of evidence, mainly in regard to the identification of the property, was commenced, the Court adjourning for the day shortly afterwards, On resumption this morning, further evidence in regard to the identification of 'he property was taken.

Mr Cooke, in addressing tho jury on behalf of the Crown, stated that the evidence was very conclusive and very much to ;he pond.

. Mr Oram appealed to the jury to consider separately each of tho five charges against accused. 'lhe evidence for (he Crown must, bo so conclusive as to leave no room for doubt as to whether accused was guilty or not.

His Honour, in summing up, instructed the jury to consider tho actual facts instead of each separate case. They could not consider each case separately. No human being could do so. They ’ would have to consider whether they had an habitual bicycle thief before them or not. They would have to consider the systematic acts of the accused. If there was a flaw in the evidence of any one case it might upset that case. If, however, they thought these thefts were systematic and were satisfied that some of the accusations were true thou they had sufficient grounds to enter a conviction. The Crown had suggested that tho thefts wore systematic.

The jury after a short absence returned a verdict of guilty on all live charges. His Honour, in addressing accused, referred to his long list of previous convictions, which had included theft and fraud. Accused had been declared an habitual criminal on several previous occasions. His Honour stated that he did not know what to do with a man who viewed life as lightly as did Woolley. Neither reformative treatment nor imprisonment seemed to have done him any good and he appeared to steal whenever he felt an inclination to do so. He sentenced accused to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour and also declared him an habitual criminal.