WAIHOU BUTTER THEFTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17881, 8 September 1921, Page 6

WAIHOU BUTTER THEFTS.

THREE ACCUSED IN COURT.

ONE GUILTS OF BECEIVING.

REMAINING TWO ACQUITTED [fiX TSUBBJUKK.—OWH OOBBMHHMnJBST.] HAMILTON. Wednesday.

The hearing of the- charges against Bobert Stewart, May Stewart and William Alfred Couch in connection "with the theft of buttey from the Waihou lactory was concluded in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Stringer to-day.

A large number of storekeepers, restaurant proprietors and others in Te Aroha and Morrinsville deposed to buying butter from either Stewart or his wife, and in some instances from Conch.

Peter A. Sweeney, farmer, of Waihou, and a former director of the Thames Valley Company, said that when the constable arrested Stewart he put him in witness* motor-car. Witness said he had made a nice mess of affairs. Stewart said they were caught and might as weil own up to it. He asked witness to use his influence to get him out of the trouble. Constable Monson said that on seeing the Stewarts take butter' into a store he asked Stewart where he . got it frum. from hi? own and his brother-in-law's farms. Witness then charged Stewart with being in possession of stolen property. He made no reply at first, but later said he might as well own up that be had got it from the Waihon factory Subsequently he said Goodwin got it for him. Witness put him in Sweeney's motor-car and went to Goodwin's house, where he found three boxes of butter. Witness searched Stewart's house and found 741b. of buter in the dairy. Mrs Stewart admitted this came from the Waihou factory. Subsequently Stewart made a statement- in which be said he got the butter from Goodwin. Mrs. Stewart, .in a statement, said the butter was brought to their place by Goodwin, who said he was entitled to all above the over-run and that they would not get into trouble. Mrs. Stewart was arrested later. Later witness saw Couch, who also made a statement.

Constable Daly gave corroborative evidence.

Case for Mrs. Stewart.

May Stewart, one of the accused, said that Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin went to her house and Goodwin asked what they did with the butter. They said they sold it to storekeepers. He asked if they could sell any of his. He said that all he could mal'£ over and above the over-run he was entitled to. He also said that if he melted down the waste butter it would be his own property. Later butter was brought to her house, and she sold it with her own. She heard at one time of butter being missed between Waihou and Horotiu, and she told Goodwin' to stop bringing any more in case they thought that was some of the lost butter. He said that that could not be thought, M it was lost off the trucks. Goodwin and his wife helped her to make up the butter, and Mrs. Goodwin was with her on several occasions when she sold it. Witness sold the butter quite openly, and always believed it was Goodwin's property. Couch was employed by her husband. Witness received the money from the sale of the butter, and she paid half to Goodwin. William Alfred Couch said he was employed by hiß brother-in-law, Stewart. He received none of the proceeds from the butter, and he only took one trip with it. Cross-examined, he said he knew the but*er cams from the factory, but did not know on what terms it was delivered to the Stewarts. Addressing the jury for the defence, counsel said that with regard to Mrs. Stewart he submitted that there was nothing in the evidence to show that she was aware that the butter had been stolen. Coach, he also submitted, was simply a hired man, and in no way cognisant of the dealings between Stewart and Goodwin.

Commeats by the Judge. In summing up the Judge said Mr. Finlay, with commendable frankness and as an honourable advocate, had not attempted to insult their intelligence < by suggesting that Stewart did not know that the butter was dishonestly obtained. With respect to Mrs. Stewart, the Judge said it vas possible she did not realise how suspicious were the circumstances, but if on the other hand the jury thought that she, as a sensible woman, should have known the position, then they would find her guilty. Dealing with Couch, the Judee said there was very little evidence against him. After a retirement of two hours the jury found Bobert Stewart guilty of re ceiving. He was remanded until to-mor-iow for sentence. May Stewart and C<such were found not guilty, and were discharged.