THEFT OF OVERCOAT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18953, 29 August 1923, Page 3

THEFT OF OVERCOAT.

A WOMAN SENTENCED. THREE MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT. The only case to come before the City Police Court yesterday morning was on© in which James Baxter Kerr and Minnie O’Connor were each charged with stealing an overcoat (valued at £5), the property of John Philips Stapleton. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., was on the bench. Mr W. G. Hay appeared for Kerr, against whom the charge was dismissed, and the female accused, who was not represented by counsel, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. On the application of Chief Detective Lewis, who prosecuted, the charges against the two accused were heard together. Both pleaded not guilty. The complainant, a clerk employed at the Mount Pisa sheep station, first gave ({evidence. He said that on July 9, while staying at the Farmers’ Arms Hotel, he left his coat in the sitting room. He had spent about four days in bed, and his coat was stolen when he got up. He did not see it again until he identified it in a second-hand shop in Stafford street, about three days afterwards. He identified a coat produced as his. Matthew Henry Richards, licensee of the hotel, said that on July 10 he saw in the passage at the hotel a coat similar to the one produced. His daughter had taken it from the sitting room and left it there. Witness said he put it back on the sofa in the sitting room. Henry Smith, a deck hand employed on the s.s. Waitangi, said that on July 10 he was in the hotel, both in the back parlour and in the sitting room. The “lady and gentleman in the box” and a man named Campbell were in the sitting room. Campbell loft first, the other two following together later. The man had under his arm a coat very much like the one produced. . , In reply to Mr Hay, witness said that he had had about two drinks at that hotel, and none at any other. He had gone into the sitting room to get a parcel which he had left there in the morning. The male accused {who was wearing a moustache) had no moustache then. Witness _ had never seen him before then, but “instinct had made him take particular notice when in the hotel, and he had identified him that morning. Mr Hay; That seems to have been a peculiar instinct. Can you explain it? Witness: There was something out of the ordinary—something about tne “company.” T can’t explain it just now. In reply to a question about the “company,” witness said it was the character of the other man that had made him take notice. Ho knew the other man. Continuing, witness said that he had stayed in th© parlour about a minute, and did not got his parcel then. Ho wanted to get away from the “company” ; there was something “dubious” about it. Mr Hay: What do you mean •by dubious?

Witness: It was not the sort of society that I mix with. Continuing, he said that Campbell had spoken to him, and that was enough for him.

Mr Hay; What did he say? Witness: I refuse to answer that. It has nothing to do with this case. Witness said that h e wont back into the parlour, whore there were some “respectable gentlemen”—friends of his. He was there for about an hour after that, but had only the two drinks; he was just talking. to his mates. The two accused did not com© into , the bar parlour. Sarah Gnmpatzes, second-hand dealer, said that a coat similar to the one produced was sold to her, in her shop in Stafford street, on July 10, by a woman (whom she identified ns the female accused), who gave her name as Mrs Williams and her address as 22 Albany street. She paid 5s for the coat, and hung it up in her shop. The following day, when inquiries were made, she gave it into the possession of the detectives. Acting-detective Sneddon said that on July 11 he recovered the coat produced from the second-hand shop. He interviewed the female accused on July 26 Mr Hay: Was the male accused present? Witness; No.

Mr Hay: Then I object to this evidence. The Magistrate: This will not be taken as evidence against the male accused. The acting-detective went on to say that the female accused signed a statement that on July 9 she had met two men, whom she know by sight, and they went into the Farmers’. Arms Hotel, She had not noticed either of the men wearing an overcoat when they had gone in, but when they had left the hotel one of them—the one in a dark suit —was wearing one. Ho had asked her to sell it, saying that it was his own, and she had done so, receiving 5s for it. She had given the wrong name and address to the second-hand dealer. She had handed the money over to th© man. She did not know his name, but would have no difficulty in recognising him. The witness Smith htd picked the accused out of 10 men in the police yard. In reply to Mr • Hay: Kerr had been out of town for some time. The police were looking for him at the time the female accused was convicted _on another charge, but could not find him. Witness admitted that, before Smith had identified the male accused, two people had failed to do so, but both were under a misunderstanding, and were looking ior Campbell. Smith had been shown a photograph of Kerr that was taken in 1901. The female accused: That was not the man w;ho gave me the coat. _ Mr Hay said that the evidence against the male accused was lamentably weak, and the identification had been absolutely unsatisfactory. Apparently one person had picked out the wrong man, and another had given an unsatisfactory answer. Smith had been shown a photograph first. Was that the way identification be carried out in the interests of justice? After that, was Smith bona fide? The male accused,, on oath, said that ho was a sawmill hand, and had been working at Port Craig, where Campbell also worked. They were in town on July 9, and had gone to the Farmers’ Arms Hotel. He himself had with him a coat that a friend named Arthur Johnston had lent him to cover up a tear in the knee of his trousers. When he came out of the hotel he was carrying the coat under Ids arm. allowing it to -hang over and hide his knee. He had returned the coat to his friend outside Hastings's Hotel, whore he_ had thought he would he going for a drink. His friend worked in the country, and he did not know where he was at the present time. Smith’s statement that he left the hotel with the female accused was untrue. _ The Chief Detective read out a lengthy list of previous convictions against the male accused. The Magistrate said that there was not sufficient evidence to show that it was the male accused who had been in company with the female accused when she loft the hotel. Ho did not understand the action of the police in first showing a photograph to Smith. It seemed to be an improper procedure. The charge against the male accused would be dismissed. The Chief Detective said that the actingdetective had assured him that the usual procedure had been followed—that Smith had first been shown a collection of photographs. including one of Smith, at tho time the inquiry was being made. The Magistrate said that the witness’s evidence had led one to believe that this had been done just prior to the identification. He was pleased to have the Chief Detective’s assurance that that was not the position. The female accused was convicted, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, tho term to commence at the end of the month which she was at present serving.