A STRANGE CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10509, 10 February 1920, Page 4

A STRANGE CASE

THIEF OR LOVER ? CHARGES AGAINST WAIRARAPA BUSINESS MAN. Before Mr Justice Edwards in the Supreme Court yesterday Howard Harold Armstrong was charged with having broken and entered the shop or May EJlizabeth Bailiie and stolen six pairs of boots f.nd 5s in money. Ho was also charged with having broken aria entered the dwelling with intent to commit a. c'riino, and with being a' rogue and a vagabond hi that he had two pick-lock keys in his possession . The Grown was represented in the case by Mr P. S. K. Macassey. Sir John Eindlay, K.C., with whom was Mr C. H, Taylor, appeared for the accused. Mr A. X'hris'tensnn was foreman of the jury. sgmkonE; using a jemmy.

In dpbning the case Mr Macassey said that the Crown's chief witness was Mrs Bailiie, the keeper of a boot shop fft Carterton. Armstrong and Mrs Bailiie had been close, acquaintances for a considerable-' -time Mrs Bailiie locked up her shop on the ■evening of October 17th, but on the. following day found that the front.' door had been opened and that boots had been stolen. The outer Lii'cK door had been forced and a'li' attenrpt' made, to foi-cp the inner, back door in which a skeleton kev hud been found. On September' 38Ui Armstrong had been found on the premises and had said that he was thereto" ''plant" a. biYEliday cake for one of the Bailiie family. He had (two skeleton keys" in his possession when ho waa arrested.

THE WOMAN IN THE- CASE.

■ May Elizabeth Baillie, a Carterton w 1 dorr, said she was fli© deeper of « buirt .shop. She left her shop <m October 17th at 9.15 p.m. -and alien the promises were locked up. When she went back on the folio-wing morning she found that the front door had been- broken open. The outer back door" had been opened and the' inner iback door had a skeleton key in it and force had Leen used in an ertdcavour to open it. lAftor the. police had investigated the case, Armstrong came to the, shop and mentioned th'St someone had tried to break into his shop but had ne ? n unsuccessful. Armstrong had been known to" hdr for Wehty years' and he had visited her house while her husband was alive and since then. In business matters he had given her help, but she had had' reason fo .object jEo some interferences by Armstrong. in September she waited at the- shop and saw Armstrong erifer it and leave again. Next day he had. said that he had gone 1 to sec''if she was there. She bought a new-lock, and Armstrong saw it r.nd remarked: "So you think this will"keep out Armstrong?" Armstrong had been air intimate friend of her husband, who died five! pars ago. Armstrong had helped her, in business, but she did not r'ememb6r her husband making anv fetjile'st of him to that effect, riiey were thrown together a good deal and once she found Armstrong m her shop. Ho* that he was 'there to plav a. joke oh Mrs Bailhe's daughter by"liiding a birthday cake 1 . _ PERTURBED ABOUT A RIVAL.

In reply to questions by Sir John Findlay, witness said that Armstrong went to her house on Saturday nights frequently, and on those evenings her daughter" was usually at the pictures. Airs Armstrong left Armstrong some vear.s ago. Before Armstrong, divorced his wife he asked Mrs Baillio if she would -marry h'im after the divorce. She did not givo a definite answer. After his divorce, Arm-strong reckoned there was ..a rival against him regarding ' Mrs .Ba'illie, and lie made efforts to get to know who it was. SOME PERTINENT QUERIES.

Sir John Find lay: Has not Armstrong been ofie, df the best friends vou ever had ?—-Ye&. And now he,is charged with a very serious offence? —¥cs. Witness Admitted she knew that Armstrong- had had a key of her shop, arid that he let himself into the shop at night time for years. Sir'John Findlay: Vou kiift-v when he.came to your shop that night and found you there that he was looking for you P—Yes. He afterwards asfc6d, J'biir mother if she knew where you wieM ?—Yes.

Then he went, there* U> see you—certainly not your bo&te?—Yos. Here is .a man charged with burglary who had a key to your shoo for some' -time' with your knowledge'?— Yeis: Witness added'that accused's affections became" fctrohger for her, but she cooled towards him. She had, however, allowed him to keep the' key of the shop. Sir John: Then this man is charged with burglary in your shorn whom you entrusted with the key for getting into the shop, and who advised you to. put ft new lock oh your door knowing that lie could riot tKe'jj get in? —Yes. Admitting their friendly relations, \vitnesg sajd Armstrong had called ilier May, but she had not called him Howard. Confronted with letters she had written to. actiustd in 1915, which, ope'hed, "Dear 'Howard,'' witness said 6he must have forgotten. Sir. John: He is charged with stealing boot« t etc.,- of the value of & few pounds sterling. Has lie hoi. advanced you money on many occasions—£6o on one occasion?— L No, hot advanced it; he gave me it to keep for foim. What did you do with it?—l paid £SO off my liolisO with" it, but I had the money all the time in the Poist tifficd.

What albout the other £10?—It is still in tlie bank. Ho gave it to iuo to hold for Him; so that he would hot have so much money in the bank. iSir John said ho quite understood that Armstrong would, not want to appear to have too much' money in the banlc jit the divorce proceedings, but still witness had admitted holding accused's money. In the. course of further replies, witness admitted that accused had paid insurance premiums for hbr, had kept tlio kej*s of I<er safe; banked her money ftir her, ftiid that generally, she had regarded hint as being above reproach. Ho had also been a, good friend,to her tnro,boys for "some years. Sir John: Until ho took to following ybli, about; trying to find out who hisi rival waS—after his- divorce proceedings—you didn't doubt his honesty at all—until ho became n "silly old fool,'' too much in love with you to ItiW- w1i.41: hH was ddih£?—-Witness made nb answer to the question. A DAUGHTER OF MRS BAILLIK.

Rene Baillio, daughter of Mrs Baillie, deposed that oh the night before

her birthday- she and her mother returned home and found tbo key in the. back door. Her mother called out, "Who's thero?" Armstrong replied that he was, and ho explained that he •was there to play a joke by hiding Rei\c's birthday cake. DETECTIVE'S EVIDENCE. Detective Mason said the outer baclt do6r at Mrs Baillie's was not opened by a key, but with an ordinary jemmy. .He thought that anyone armed with a jemmy could also force the inner 'back door. Entry had been made ■by the front door, which was opennil with a key. The attempted entry by this (back door had been made with. >\ purpose. What took him to Carterton was a complaint re ari alleged burglary at saddlery shop. He examined the door and found it to hear the same jemmy marks as those on Mrs Baillie's door. There was a feey which would open that door and that would also open the door at Mrs Baillie's. He told Armstrong that' from his experience he reckoned the attempts on the windows and ■ doors at Armstrong's shop were not serious. SHADOWING A DETECTIVE.

Witness remained ittf Carterton for about three days, and.he found that Armstrong shadowed him. If ho did not see Armstrong in sight he had only to. step into a doorway and .Armstrong would pass by on his bieyole. Armstrong made a statement, after which he was questioned, and said that he had never had a skeleton key in his possession. However, witness said he had reason' to believe that Armstrong had a skeleton key in his possession and in'tonded to search' him; Armstrong then handed over a skeleton key. He said he used aU the keys in. his possession for his private house and his shop- and not fpr any other purpose. In opening the case f<ir the defendant, iSir John Findlay stressed the point that Armstrong was at- prosperous business man who could hardly be imagined in.the role of a thief of £IU ■worth-of footwear. The-jury s'h'ould make allowance for the probability fhat Mrs Bailiie was endeavouring to save her moral reputation when- she said Armstrong, had no key to her place, but they must realise where itfafc statemen had landed Armstrong. The case stands adjourned till today.