EXPENSIVE FOOTBALL.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2642, 10 May 1923, Page 3

EXPENSIVE FOOTBALL.

MONEY VANISHES DURING " FRIENDLY " MATCH.

The mysterious disappearance "of five £1 notes from the. pocket of a man's trousers, left on a fence Avhilst! he engaged in a little informal game of football at Feilding last month, was the reason for a charge to which a young man named Hugh Cameron Murdoch entered a plea of not guilty when appearing before His Honor, Sir John Salmond yesterday. Mr. F. H. Cooke appeared for the prosecution and Mr. H. R. Cooper for the accused.

Accused was alternatively charged with receiving the money, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. The theft was alleged to have been committed on April 19, the victim being William H. J. Kitching. The following jury was empanelled: Robert A. Fuller (foreman), Arthur J. Berryman, Percy Skeates, John K. Keen, William J. Smith, Alfred E. Jefferies, John E. Bartlett, Leonard Birch, George Bruce, William F. O'Donnell, Henry C. Hansen, Alfred Richards.

Mr. Cooke, the Crown prosecutor, in opening the case, stated that the complainant had left his trousers hanging up while he engaged in a game of football. However, at the conclusion of a game, the five pounds mentioned were missing. Previously ':he complainant had four notes in his possession and also over a pound's worth of silver, which he asked the 'mblican of the Empire Hotel, Mr. MoGuire, to change. He took particular notice of this note, as the signature had penetrated the back. After the loss, he communicated with the police and also mentioned and described the note to the barman of the hotel. On Sunday morning the accused purchased a drink and tendered x note for which he received 19/6 flange, but the barman did not idenify the note. However, the man returned and asked for two packets of Mgarettes, for which he tendered another fl, which the barman identified Phis, contended counsel for the prose■ution, was strong evidence when a stranger could recognise the note on he description given. Evidence on similar lfnes was tenlored by William H. J. Kitching, a trimmer at the freezing works. He mid that on the evening mentioned, he went out to have a game of football .inder the electric light in the vicinity of the hotel and had his football 'ogs on underneath his clothes, which '-<e removed prior to playing. The ac■used was also playing, but was dressed before witness. On discovering 'lis loss, witness reported the matter to the police. Later, however, the accused asked witness to give him a fiance for his mother's sake. Witness lid not think that this would be posible, but he would see the sergeant. To Mr. Cooper: Accused had denied taking the money when questioned. When the barman had shown witness •he note, he had immediately recognised it. Accused was playing when witness arrived, but he was dressed when the witness came off the field. There were about 40 persons present. Robert George Henderson, barman,, at the Empire Hotel said he had been asked by Kitchen on the Friday night to look out ft>r a Bank ' of Australasia note with the signature showing through, and an ink stain on the back. On the Sunday accused asked him to cash a note, which was not the one witness was, 'ooking for. A few minutes later, accused cashed a second note for two. packets of cigarettes saying he wanted the silver. Witness recognised the second note as the one Kitchen said, he had lost. He sent for Kitchen and, showed him the note. Kitchen said it was the one he had lost. Witness) gave the note to the proprietor who, put it. in the till, and later locked it r up in the safe. It was later handed; over to the police. To Mr Cooper: Witness cashed the 'irst note with silver from the till, and he second from his own pocket. He iut the second note in his pocket separate from his own notes. He ?ave it to Mr MeG(uire on the Mon-, lay morning - . When the police came, witness was present, and saw Mrs McGuire open the safe and give the, note to the police. Witness picked the lote out from a bundle of others imongst which was only one other >sank of Australasia note, and it was ' very dirty one.

Constable McColl, stationed at ( gave evidence as to having mterviewed the accused in consequence of a complaint from Kitchen. Witness told accused he was suspect■d of stealing £5 from Kitchen. Accused said: No, not me." Witness -howed him the note (produced) and >sked him if he remembered having it in his possession. He said, no, he never had had it. He had got 30/ "Yom the freezing works, where he " r as employed. He had won £2 at on Saturday night. He had a !rink at the Empire Hotel and bought, two packets of cigarettes, and changed the two £1 notes which he had ■•on for silver.

To Mr Cooper: Witness had no varant to arrest accused at the time.

Mr A. J. Austin, restaurant-keeper, of Feilding, told the Court he saw accused playing poker with the two men Merwood and Matthews on Saturday night. Witness had cashed a Bank of New Zealand note for Merwood. Accused got one £1 note, but vitness did not know on what bank ; t was.

To Mr Cooper: Witness did not pay :>ut any notes during the night's play and neither did Mathews. Merwood was the only one who had paid out any notes.

Reginald Charles Merwood, of Feilding, said that he, accused, Austin, a Maori and another man had played Doker until 7 or 8 o'clock in the morning. Witness lost £2 10/ and Daid out two £1 notes. One was a Bank of New South Wales and one a Bank of New Zealand. He gave accused a £1 note which he thought was the Bank of New South Wales one but he could not be certain. Not very much money had changed hands most of it being put on paper.

B. "W. Mathews, gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness..

This closed the case for the prosecution.

Accused, in the box, said he lived with his parents at Feilding. He drew £5 12/8 on Friday, the 13th, and also drew £3 10/ in advance.' On the 19th (Thursday) he drew 30/ in the presence of a man named Birnie. From Birnie on the same day he got 10/ in payment of a debt. About a week before he borrowed 5/ from one McGuire. On the football field he borrowed football clothes from Kitchen for use the next day. Kitchen told him that £5 had been stolen from his clothes and took witness and some companions over to where the clothes were. He played football on Saturday afternoon and poker in the evening. Ho started with a little under £3. He cashed two £1 notes at the hotel on Sunday morning. He got one of them from Merwood and had an idea he got the other from Matthews. To the Crown Prosecutor witness admitted he had been previously convicted for theft at Napier.

L. W. Birnie, slaughterman, Feilding, corroborated the evidence of accused as to his drawing the 30/, and to paying him 10/. Counsel for the defence, in addressing the Court, said the whole of the Crown's case depended on the identity of the £1 note. As the >ury knew, there were thousands of notes with ink marks on the back.

L. C. Redvr-ood, accountant at the Bank of Australasia, Feilding, said it was quite common for the signature on a note to go through the paper. The signature on the note produced had gone through. Out of 21 specimens which he had selected from 100, witness declared that on all but two, the signature had gone through the paper.

Mr Cooper, in addressing the Court, said Kitchen's recollection of the note was not sufficent to identify it. He had taken it from McGuire on the Thursday, wrapped it round a lot of others, and put it in his pocket. When shown a note by the barman he had immediately concluded that it was the one he had lost. There was no evidence that accused was seen near the place where Kitchen's clothes were hung. It was quite pos- i that another man playing- poker on the night under review might have passed the note in question. The Crown Prosecutor in a brief address told the jury that the accused had the opportunity to steal. All the Banks of Australasia in the country might be searched without another note with both the marks borne by the one in question. His Honour, in summing up, remarked that there was no doubt that five £1 notes were stolen on the football field from Kitchen's clothes and that accused, amongst others, had the opportunity of stealing the money. Outside this, the question was whether the note produced was one of those stolen. In very few cases a bank note could be identjted. Kitchen had gone to the barman and asked him to look out for the note as if he suspected accused, and that he would attempt to cash it at that bar. He had cashed a note corresponding to that description. It was a remarkable coincidence. The prosecution asked the jury to identify the note because of the coincidence of the two marks —the signature and a V mark. Amongst the specimens produced by the bank official there was also one with a V mark. It was not very easy to understand how Kitchen came to observe the. note so closely. Even supposing the jury was satisfied with the identity of the note they had further to consider whether Murdock came by the note dishonestly. They would probably not have very onuch doubt that that very note was presented by accused at the bar. The case was a very curious one. The jury was not to infer that because accused had been convicted of theft that he was guilty of the offence with which he -was now charged. The jury, after an absence of ten jminutes, returned a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.