CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18552, 9 November 1923, Page 11

CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

CHARGE OF RECEIVING.

MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY.

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER'S BAG.

The Criminal Sessions of the Auckland Supreme Court were continued yesterday beforo Mr. Justice Stringer and Mr. Justice Herdman. ■ A young man, William, Benjamin Elt (Mr. Moody), pleaded not guilty before Mr. Justice Stringer to a charge of stealing, on October 5, at Paeroa, a suit-case, a Post Office Savings Bank book, war bonds for £100, and other articles, of a total value of £12-5, the property of William James Evers. To a charge of receiving tho property, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained, accused also pleaded not guilty. Mr. Meredith, for tho Crown, said that Evers, a commercial traveller, got off a train at Paeroa, to go into the township, leaving his bag on the platform. Upon his return, the bag had disappeared. It was recovered from accused's bedroom at Thames on October 11. Accused was a member of a vaudeville company. Another member of that company, named Saunders, and Elt were prosecuted in connection with the theft. Saunders then pleaded guilty, but Elt pleaded not guilty. Further evidence was received and Elt was committed for trial, for stealing and receiving. Saunders would state that seeing the bag, Mrs. Elt remarked that she " could do with a bag like that." Saunders then put the bag into the train. When the company got to Thames, the bag, upon Mrs. Elt's suggestion, was taken to the Fit's bedroom. Another Man Admits Offence. Constable Briggs, of Thames, gave evidence of arrest. Accused, ho said, denied any knowledge of the bag. Accused called to his wife" Here, you will be wanted in this." The wife said. "What bag?" and accused said " You know, the bag that Pat took." Saunders then said he had taken the bag and he exonerated Elt from blame. Elt said he had warned Saunders to hand the bag to the police or to its owner. Arthur Charles Saunders, who described himself as a comedian, aged 19, admitted taking the bag and putting it in the rack. He indicated the bag to Elt, who said "You should not have done that." Even, was pacing up and down the platform, and Elt said, "That may be the owner." At Thames witness gave Mrs. Elt certain of the contents. Elt assisted him to sort out the papers, and handed him some, the most incriminating ones, to burn. When they came to the war bonds, Elt said it was a pity they had not seen them previously as they could have cashed them, Teas it would be dangerous to do so then. Elt did nothing in regard to the theft. His Honor said the only question in regard to accused was one of receiving, with which Mr. Meredith agreed. Accused Gives Evidence. Accused, in evidence, said he vvs a bricklayer, and had been in New Zealand about i2 years. Accused first knew Saunders had taken the bag two days after the theft, when Saunders took it into accused's room and emptied out the contents. He advised Saunders to take the bag to the police station. To that Saunders said he would get into trouble. He bad not received one penny from the proceeds of the theft. Cross-examined, accused said he saw the bag in the carriage rack. His Honor > When you saw the war bonds why did you not take measures to have them returned?—l told Saunders they should be immediately returned and he started to pack them up, saying they would be returned. Accused's wife said she saw Saanders take the bag to his room in the boardinghouse. Her husband did not go •hroagn the papers; Saunders did that himself. She first knew the papers were in her tag when the police arrested Elt. His Honor, in regard to the charge of receiving, said it would be necessary for accused to have the goods under his sole dominion. Saunders had part of the possession. Mr. Meredith: They were in the man's bedroom. His Honor pointed out that Saunders had access to Elt's room and other people went there. Elt had no control of the bag. The jury, after a short retirement, returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.

ALLEGATION OF ASSAULT.

VERDICT OP NOT GUILTY.

A plea of not guilty was entered by Alfred Brophy (Mr. when charged with having assaulteu""~arnett Bennett so as to cause him actual bodily harm. He was further charged with common assault. The evidence of Bennett, who has left fhe country was read. Bennett's statement was that shortly after ten o'clock in the morning he passed accused's fruit shop. Accused came out of the shop and hit him with his fist, fracturing his jaw. Bennett then put his hands up and told Brophy not to hit him any more as He was too sick. Brophy replied, " I win knock you into eternity.'' There had been no provocation. He had never used obscene language to Brophy, buifc had said that he would summons those in the shop if they sold cigarettes to his boy. Counsel for accused said that what Brophy did was not only the result of extreme provocation, but it was done in self-defence. - Bennett had previously abused Brophy's partner, used very bad language, and threatened to knocK . the men's heads off. On the day of the assault, Brophy told Bennett he should apologise for his past conduct. "Bennett, however, started to take his coat off and struck at accused, but Brophy got his blow in first. Accused gave evidence on these lines, and several other witnesses told of Bennett's previous threatening behaviour. After a few minutes' retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guiltyj and accused was discharged.

In connection -with the case of William Thomson, heard in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, reference was made to domestic trouble between the accused and his wife. The decree mentioned was granted on the application of the wife, and not the husband, as stated in the report.