TARANAKI ROBBERIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20425, 29 November 1929, Page 16

TARANAKI ROBBERIES.

TWO MEN FOUND GUILTY.

COMMENT MADE BY JUDGE

ATTITUDE OF THE ACCUSED

[BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] NEW PLYMOUTH. Thursday. A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury in the Supreme Coiirt yesterday against Leonard Edward omith and Sydney William Stroud. They were charged with breaking and entering a shop at Pukekura Park and stealing goods, breaking and entering a shop nt. Kawaroa Park and stealing goods, stealing overcoats from the high school, stealing postal packets at Wailara, and breaking and entering the warehouse of Bortlnvick's at Waitara with intent to commit a crime.

Mr. Justico McGregor, in summing tip, said it was shown that the two accused at (ho time of the robberies wero close friends and wero seen together in the company of Raymond Elliott. There was the evidence of Elliott (o show (hat lie was engaged with the others in tho perpetration of (ho crimes. There, was cor-' roboration of tho evidence in the language and manner of the accused before the police. "It seems to me," continued the Judge,

"that it is a strong, clear, almost overwhelming case against the accused. What is the defence? I have been waiting for it. What have they brought': Was their attitude when seen by police any explanation? When tho theft was committed at the high school Elliott, a silly young man, had accepted and worn an overcoat. Tho other two were too clever. They threw (heirs away." Concerning Smith's manner when seen by the police Ilis Honor said it seemed it was the attitiide of a hardened criminal. When entering tho police station ho had advised Elliott (o say nothing and know nothing. Was that the conduct of an innocent, man ? Then there was Stroud's altitude. When seen he had said nothing. He had made a threat and his whole attitude had been corroboration of Elliott's evidence. If Stroud had been able to establish an alibi, if he had denied, as an innocent man would have done, any knowledgo of tho crimes, if he had shown that he was not, as he contended, a party (o (he offences, ir * then fchero would have been no case against him. If Smith was not concerned in the robberies he must have known where he was and could have shown it.

"I asked in vain for an explanation from the defence," concluded His Honor. "Nothing has been proved, nothing can be proved. It seems to me that your duty is to jconvict on all charges. There is no middle course. They are either innocent on all charges or guilty on all charges. If innocent they arc wrongly charged. If not they are a pair of hardened young thieves who have been robbing people in company of another not so hardened but bigger fool. The case is one of extremef simplicity." The jury returned in an hour with a verdict of guilty on all charges.