THEFT OF SAMPLES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19892, 10 March 1928, Page 13

THEFT OF SAMPLES.

GOODS TAKEN FROM GARAGE, U; Ipfl TWO MEN FOUND GUILTY. ■ •' * : ADVICE GIVEN BY JUDGE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Friday. . The hearing of cnarges against Ira George Land, aged 27, and Bernard Francis Murray, aged 21, of breaking into and entering a garage at Tauranga on the night of January • 27, and stealing travellers' samples valued at £95, and of receiving stolen goods, was concluded before Mr. Justice Blair and a jury in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day. Both men were found guilty. After counsel had addressed the jttry, the Judge said it was not disputed that the garage was broken into between 11 p.m. on January 27 and 8 a.m. on January 28. Moreover, there was no doubt that the goods contained in six or seven suitcases and left in a car by a commercial traveller were stolen during that night. The evidence showed that the accused were in Tauranga on the night of the burglary, and that they were driving a peculiariy-painted motor-van, which was identified by at least two witnesses, one of whom described it to the police before he knew a burglary had been committed The description was such that immediately it arrived in Hamilton the vehiclo was stopped by. the police, and the driver, Murray, was questioned. There was no dispute, further, that the vehiclo had just come from Tauranga. Murray's explanation of the possession of certain goods was that he had bought them from a man he had picked up. This man, he had said, was carrying two heavy trunks on the Tauranga-Matamata Road. It was for the jury to say whether Hurray's story of purchasing the goods from * traveller he picked up on the rosd was a reasonable explanation of the possession of stolen goods. The charge of breaking and entering and theft was based largely on circumstantial evidence, continued His Honor. The charge of receiving was in a different category. The stolen goods were found in the possession of accused, and the question for the jury to decide was whether the accused had proved that they did not know that they had been dishonestly obtained. The statements, made by the two accused differed. Accepting in its entirety Murray's statement regarding the purchasing of goods valued at £3O for 30s,* it was a question whether the circumstances of the purchase were not in the highest degree suspicious. After an hour's retirement the jury found both prisoners guilty on both charges of breaking and entering and theft, and of receiving stolen goods. The jury added a rider asking that mercy be extended to the younger prisoner, Murray, on account of the influence exerted over him by Land. The Judge and the Crown solicitor remarked that they agreed with the view expressed by the jury. His Honor said he would remand the prisoners for sentence until Monday, apd m the meantime they might consider it worth their while to give information that would lead to the recovery of the balance cf the stolen goods.