CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21099, 5 February 1932, Page 12

CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.

MAN AM) YOUTH ON TRIAL.

ALLEGED PLAN TO ROB BANK j VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. •*A LOT OF FOOLISH TALK."

1 Pleas of not guilty were entered by a man, Reginald TTyland, and a boy, Andrew Robert Anderson, who appeared before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of conspiring to break and enter the premises of the Union Bank of Australia at DaTgavillo and commit theft. Evidence called by the Crown showed that the accused appeared to be on friendly terms. On one occasion, the mother of Anderson stated in evidence, Anderson was heard to remark, "We want a revolver," Hvland adding, "We want gelignite, too. ' On a later occasion, witness said, sho heard that they proposed to rob a bank. Ilyland wrote a letter to a man named Eric W T illiams and she had heard Williams say, after conversation with the two accused, I absolutely refuse." Cross-examined, the witness said sho heard the accused remark that they wanted "a third man to do tho job." She had not seen them with anything for breaking into a place. Refused to Join Accused.

A farm employee, Eric Edgar Williams, staled that on an evening in October Anderson had asked him, "What about going robbing ?" Witness asked what, and Anderson replied, "The bank." On the following day Hyland said ho and Anderson were going to rob the Union Bank of Australia. When asked by Hyland whether he would go with the accnsed, witness replied that he had sufficient work and would not join them. Hyland had mentioned something to the effect that he would be watching outside. "Anderson asked for a loan of a singleshob pea-rifle I have," said Wilfred Hansen, a labourer. "I refused to lend the weapon." Replying to counsel, witness said he did not know Hyland, and the rifle had not left his possession. Evidence was given by a contractor, William Montgomerie, that Anderson had been working for him for some months. Witness had gelignite and caps stored in his workshop. "Studied How to Blow a Lock." Statements made to the police by the accused were produced by Coilstable Tristram. Anderson had said, following an interview on October 31, he was in conversation with Hyland, who remarked that he could not obtain employment and the only thing to do was to break into some place. They decided to break into the Union Bank of Australia on the first rough night. According /to the statement, they had proposed to use gelignite and it was suggested that, Hyland should wait outside while Williams, whose assistance bad been hoped for, and Anderson went inside. "I have studied how to blow a lock with gelignite," Anderson's statement added. "As far as I know, Hyland does not know anything of gelignite. 1 wanted a revolver for protection. I would not willingly shoot a man dead with a revolver, but would only shoot to wound him;*'

Sergeant Capp said that no gelignite or amfnunition was found when Hyland's room was searched. Ilyland stated to witness, -"Anderson Jet rue into this trouble. He said he was going to get ft pea-rifle from Hansen. I was not going to break into the bank, but was going to wait outside." Answering counsel for Anderson, Sergeant Capp said Hyland was 28 years old and' Anderson about 15 at the time. No evidence was called for the defence. "Foolish and Irresponsible." "It was merely a lot of foolish and irresponsible talk," counsel for Hyland stated, addressing the jury. "To prove a case such as this, it is necessary to show that a definite and established agreement existed. It is the onus of the Crown to prove that this was so. In this case, a third man was required in the agreement, and the third man x'efused to be a party. The crimo could not have been done without him. -Mere intention does not constitute conspiracy, continued counsel. The accused actually are two extremely foolish young men. (,'ounsel for Anderson suggested that the bare idea of a boy of 15 approaching a man in the street and asking, "What about going robbing ?" showed how empty the! talk was. A conspiracy had to be an open act. Anderson had been in gaol for three months and that alone should have been sufficient to cool his ardour. Judge's Direction to Jury. In his direction to the jury, His Honor remarked that it was all very well to brush the charge aside but, at the present time, breaking and entering was a common crime, in which irresponsible youths had been involved. If two or more mon agreed to comm'L a crime, such an action amounted to conspiracy. In the present case, there was no need to prove that the bank had been broken into or a gun or gelignite obtained. '1 he, most convincing proof were the statements by accused to the police. On the return of the jury after a retirement of more than two hours, the foreman stated tliat tlie jury had not ngiced find would require a definite ruling on the meaning of the word conspiracy. His Honor pointed out that tin iigiecj7,oii I>y two persons to commit a crime amounted to a conspiracy. If the jury derided, however, that the accused had not gone further than mere, idle talk, they would be discharged. After further retirement of ten minutes, the jury found that the accused were not guilty and they were discharged.