MISSING STORES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10898, 12 May 1921, Page 5

MISSING STORES

FOUR GUNNERS CHARGED JUDGE DISCHARGES ONE OF THE ACCUSED. NEW TRIAL ORDERED. , At the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday morning, before His Honour Mr Justice Hosting,, four members of the New Zealand Royal Artillery—Charles Somerville Lennox, George James Gould, Alfred George Smith, and Walter Leslie Young—pleaded not guilty to a charge that, “on or about December 25th last, they did, as servants of the New Zealand Government, steal tobacco and cigarettes, valued at £4 3s Bd, the property of the New Zealand Government.” Mr E. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown. All the accused were defended by Mr W. Perry. ARMY TOBACCO STORES. Charles Eric Lindsay, sergeant-major in charge of the canteen stores at “K” shed, Wellington, gave evidence as to his duties. The last check of the stores mad© by him was on November 19th, and the last cheek was made by him before that abonlt six weeks previously. Certain stores were removed in good condition to Alexandra Barracks. When he examined them on January 10th, the canteen stores had been renailed. About the 15th he got a locker and secured the goods. There was a deficiency totalling £143 4s Bjd. The four accused were members of the Roval New Zealand Artillery. His Honour: In the building right on the street?—lt is the old Mount Cook gaol. His Honour: Oh, I don’t know that. (Laughter.) In answer to His Honour, witness said the goods were in the corridor, any anybody could have access to it. There may be a score of officials in the building. Cross-examined: There were two doors, open day and night. No one verified witness’s check of the goods. He left the slip in the oases, containing a note of the contents, issues and balance. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE.

Lieutenant Henry Wilson gave evidence that he was nominally in charge at Alexandra Barracks. Abouft a score of members of the Defence staff lived there. He saw goods in the corridor during the Christmas holidays. He believed there was a flying sentry on duty on stores supplied by the Army Service Corps. Did the four accused sleep at the barracks during the holidays?—Yes. To counsel far the defence: —-There was nothing to deter a casual visitor from opening the cases, if they were dishonestly inclined. His Honour: Yes; hut it would he easier for a resident of the barracks to do it.

Witness added that 200,000 .Smith Studio cigarettes were sent to the destructor. He had seen stores stacked against the walls of the rooms.

STATEMENTS BY ACCUSED. Detective Henry Nuttall gave evidence of having interviewed . accused Young, who made a statement that ha had a quantity of the tobacco and cigarettes. It was the practice of all the men at the barracks, except three to smoke cigarettes and eat groceries taken from the cases in the corridor. Statements, admitting the use of goods from these cases, were also taken from Lennox and Smith. In Lennox’s first statement he said he knew nothing about stolen goods, and denied Young* 8 statement, including him among those who used stolen goods. The .bruy reason, said Smith, for Lennox incriminating him was that he threatened to punch his head on on© occasion. Gould denied taking any cigarettes.

JUDGE DISCHARGES GOULD. Deteotive Nuttall, -continuing his evidence, gave an estimate of ' the value of the cigarettes and tobacco which Lennox, Smith and Young had admitted taking. Hie Honour: But there is nothing against Gould. • He had better be discharged. Turning to Gould, His Honour said to accused Gould: “You can leave the court.” .Gould stepped ■ from the dock, and, as he passed through the court, a number of friends detached themselves from the crowd, and went outside, offering him their congratulations. ' DETECTIVES AND THEIR METHODS. Detective Nuttall was cross-examin-ed at great length by Mr Perry on his method of taking statements from the accused. Witness admitted having taken them to the police station, ais it was required to have the statements duplicated in type. Young had made a statement, and then decided to make a clean breast of the whole matter. Counsel for the defence: Did you say it would be in his own interest? Witness: He asked me what were his chances of - getting probation. 1 .told him it would help him if he cleared up the whale matter. Detective Holmes corroborated the previous witness’s evidence. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. John William Dalton, a member of the 'Defence Forces, gave evidence that he had seen the cases arrive. Some of them were in poor condition. They had names of troopships on them, and looked as if they had made sea tripe and. been damaged. The oigarettes were lying about loose. On the se<ond day, accused Smith came • and nailed the cases up. Ernest Packman, another member of the staff, said the “stuff” arrived in such a loose state that he said he would like to take charge of it on a basis of 10 per cent, commission. TEMPTATIONS OF ACCUSED. His Honour, in summing up, said the sole point of the case was that certain cigarettes were stolen, and certain- admissions were .made. Gould denied he had taken any. The evidence of a man’s admission against himself was the strongest of guilt, and was the most satisfactory to be had. There were temptations and opportunities for the young men to take the cigarettes. In one case, where no statement was made, there .was no arrest. Young chose to make a revelation in his statement, but it was no evidenoe against the others, whether it was taken by force or voluntarily, and must, therefore, be ignored, as regards anyone but himself. It was unfortunate that these young men should take the liberty of possessing themselves of the oigarettes, because they were lying about. The evidence indicated a large amount of carelessness, hut this did not justify stealing. Prior to tho jury’s retirement. His Honour remarked that he did not want any question to arise as to whether Gould wax free. He had power under section 18 of the Offenders’ Pro-

bation Act to discharge him, with Hie full force of acquittal. The matter need not, therefore, go to the jury. JURY FAIL TO AGREE. • After a two-hours’ retirement, Hie jury were sent for by His Honour, and asked if there was any matter on which he could help them. The foreman': I do not think there is any likelihoopl of us coming to a unanimous decision. His Honour: You have written admissions. I cannot say more than that. Under the law I can keep you a certain time. I would be glad if yougsvould endeavour to come to a decision. After four hours l retirement, the jury again appeared, and the foreman indicated that there was no chance of their agreeing. His Honour ordered a new trial, to take place during the present sessions. The accused were admitted to hail, in the same recognisances.