POSSESSION OF WATCH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17497, 15 June 1920, Page 6

POSSESSION OF WATCH.

THAMES HOTEL FIRE CASE*.

EX-FIREMAN CONVICTED.

FORMER ACQUITTAL'PLEADED

The new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Charles Joseph Stone took place at the Supremo ■ Court before Mr. Justice' Chapman and a jury of 12 yes-, terday. r < =s _

. Stone, who was a Member of the Auckland Fire Brigade, was originally charged with theft of a watch from the* Thames Hotel ; during a fire there on the night of February 19, 1919. He was arrested last January, and at tho Supreme Court sessions in Fobruary was indicted on three .count*—(l) theft of the watch from a dwelling, the 'Thames Hotel; (8 theft of the watch, and (3) receiving the watch, knowing it to have been dishonestly ob; tained. The jury returned tho following verdict -"Not guilty on tho first and second, count's. ' On the third count we find that the prisoner received the watch, but that he did not know it was stolen at the time he received it. We are agreed that he subsequently and before the detective visited him, as described in the evidence, knew the watch was stolen.' 1 The verdict was referred to the Court of Appeal, which, ordered a new trial.

Tho chaigtt preferred against Slone yesterday was that after becoming aware that .the-watch had been stolen he converted it to his own use, and thereby stole it. Mr. A. Moody, for the accused, advanced a plea of autrefois acquit. He contended that the charge should not be proceeded with, becaifse the accused was acquitted of the offence in February. Tbe,Judge said they knew exactly what the-evidence was-. The facts were not in dispute. He ruled that there was no evidence to support the plea. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, and he was bound by that order. Mr. Moody: Then Your Honor does not intend to follow the, English procedure?

His Honor. I do not care what procedure I follow. The whole of the facts are. common ground, and I rule they do not support your plea. The accused then pleaded not guilty. , The evidence was to the- effect that ■when the police asked him if ho had the watch the necked at first made a denial, but subsequently produced the- watch. The name of the owner had been effaced from the watch, and an attempt made to removo the number. . The accused said he did not notice this until the detective pointed it' out to him. He stated that he ought the watch from a man, whom he did not know, on the night of the Are. He bad been working on the telescopic ladder aUthe fire, and did not enter the hotel. The jury) after an hour's retirement, returned a verdict of polity, with a strong recommendation to merev. Sentence was deferred until this mornin?.. In answer to the Judge, Mr. Moody said li» would consider whether he would ask His Hondr to *tate a case for the Court of Anneal regarding the plea of former acnnitlal.

Hi's Honor said it was onlv ripht to Mr. Moody to Say that the poinC must have, been considered bv the Appeal Cnurt. The Judges had differed tfi to what course should be followed in the case.