FARMHAND ROBBED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22032, 12 February 1935, Page 12

FARMHAND ROBBED

MOTOR HIDE TO PENROSE

TWO YOUNG MEN GUILTY REMANDED FOR SENTENCE Two young men charged with robbing a farm hand of £8 10s, after taking him to Penrose in a motor-car on January 5 this year, were found guilty when they appeared in the' Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury.

The accused, George Quinn,, aged 27, salesman (Mr. Moody), and Harold Ormonde Hill, aged 23, panel beater (Mr. Kudd), pleaded not guilty to alternative charges of robbery with violence, robbery, and theft from the person of William Joseph Holland. Mr. Hubble, who appeared for the Crown, said the three charges all arose from the same matter. Holland travelled to Auckland from Manurewa early.on the evening of January 5, and had about £0 with him. He met three men at a hotel, and they had a drink, for which Holland paid. The three men, the accused, and a third individual, were in a position to see the money in Holland's wallet. The party went to a dance at Newmarket, and about 10.45 p.m. Holland said he would have to catch his train. The three men suggested driving him home, and although Holland said he had a return train ticket, they insisted and he agreed. Blow on Head Alleged When the drive was commenc»d, continued Mr. Hubble, Hill was driving, Holland was next to him, Quinn on Holland's left, and the fourth man in the back. At Penrose, a wrong turning was taken and Holland called Hill's attention to this. As the car was slowing down, Holland stated that he received a blow on the back of the head. When he recovered, he was lying by the roadside and £8 10s was missing from his wallet. '

The jury would probably consider that the blow was struck by the man in the back seat, who was not before the Court, Mr. Hubble added. The suggestion was, however, that the two accused and the third man had formed the intention of getting Holland's money, and thus Hill and Quinn were parties to the offence. Subsequently, Hill and Quinn were interviewed by the police. Quinn refused to give any information as to his movements on the night in question. Hill, however, made a statement to the effect that the man in the back of the car told him to stop the machine. This man then helped Holland from the car and took his money. He gave Hill £2 and Quinn £2, and kept the rest. Mr. Hubble said that this statement was not evidence against the accused Quinn. Evidence for the Crown

William Joseph Holland, farm labourer, gave evidence on the lines of Mr. Hubble's statement to the jury. He denied being intoxicated at the time of the alleged assault. Detective Sneddon produced a statement made by Hill, in which he said he had a good idea that the two men with him had the intention of taking Holland's money, although they did not actually say so. Witness added that the accused Quinn, when interviewed concerning his movements on the night of January 5, said, "I am saying inching." He denied receiving £2 of Holland's money.

Mr. Moody stressed the serious nature of the charges. He suggested that no evidence had been offered against Quinn that he had robbed Holland, or that he had taken part in any violence. Suspicion was not proof, and counsel submitted that the Crown had failed to bring forward any evidence to warrant a conviction.

On behalf of Hill, Mr. Rudd suggested that as the driver of the car he could not have struck a blow that was,' according to Holland, delivered while the car was in motion. Moreover, according to Hill's statement, it was the man in the back of the car who took Holland's monev.

In summing up, His Honor pointed out to the jury that the charges against the prisoners were alternative ones, and that if either man were found guilty, he could be guilty on one count only. After a retirement of a little over half an hour the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second charge, that of robbery. The accused were remanded for sentence.