SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19013, 8 November 1923, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) Wepxesdav, November 7. Ihe sittings of the Supreme Court were continued before his Honor Mr Justice Sira. ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING AND THEFT. ’lhe hearing of the case against Thomas Joseph Christie, alias Joseph Vernon Williams. was continued yesterday. Christie was charged (1) with breaking and entering the premises of the Otago Farmers’ Cooperative Association on or about September £9 and stealing therefrom the sum of £9B 15s 2d in money and £1 15s in postal notes; (2) breaking and entering the premises of the same company at Mosgiel on or about September 30 and stealing therefrom £26 3s 2d. the property of the company, and £l6, the property of Rubina Pearson. Mr Barrowclough appeared for the accused. Dr Spedding (Mosgiel) and Frank George Cairns (salesman at Messrs Hallenatein Bros.) gave formal evidence. Edward Percival Jordan (salesman at Messrs Hallenstein Bros.) said that he was q salesman at Messrs Hallenstein Brothers. Kf. had sold the accused a suit of clothes and four pairs of socks. The accused said that he would send for the goods and gave the name of “M’Farlane.” Walter James Watkins, mercer, said that h’ could not recognise the accused, but the docket (produced) for the eqlc of a suit was his. He remembered this transaction well, because he had given the purchaser four pound notes for four pounds of silver. Thomas Strong, porter at Wain’s Hotel, nnd Constable Martin gave evidence. Constable Martin said that he heard the evidence of Mr M’Leod, accountant of the Co-operative Company, on the previous day, but he considered that it would be possible for one man to shift the safe. The safe weighed 3cwt 14lb. He considered that, the burglarv had been done by one man. Robert Duncan, woollen warehouseman at Messrs Ross and Glendining’s, said that the piece of cloth found on the ventilator of the Otago Co-operative Company’s premises and the cloth of the suit in the possession of the accused were the same material. Detective Lean said that when he had interviewed the accused he had asked him how much money ho had brought from Melbourne, and be replied that he had brought about £l3O. All the accused s clothing was new, with the exception of a black overcoat and a navy blue suit. Accused said that he would come to the police station with witness —he had nothing to bo afraid of. The accused denied that ho had ever been at Mosgiel. He «aid that he did not know where Mosgiel was. The Crown Prosecutor said that ho did not intend to address the court. Mr Barrowclough said that the case was one of considerable difficulty and in many ways was unusual. The question wasWhat was the inference to be drawn from the facts which had been adduced? There was no single fact in itself sufficient to warrant the jurv in convicting the accused, ft was suggested that the sum total of those facts might he sufficient to lead to the belief that accused was the guilty person. That was circumstantial evidence, and had to be very carefully examined. Most ot the facts were admitted, but the jury had to decide, even though the facts were admitted, that accused was the guilty man. To find that accused was guilty they must , lie more than satisfied that the circumstances were consistent with the theory that accused was guilty, and also satisfied that the circumstances were inconsistent with a possible theory that anyone else was guilty. It was admitted that accused had arrived here as a stowaway. Ho had to admit that there was an extraordinary collection of facts which must leave a stroivg suspicion in the minds of tha jury. Un no amount of suspicion, however, was a jury entitled to convict —there must be more (ban a strong suspicion. The jury was not entitled to assume because the accused was found with a large sum of money in his possession, which he was not prepared to account for,' that he had got it dishonestly. Learned counsel proceeded to review the evidence and commented on the fact that the money had not been properly identified. The fact was admitted that the accused had escaped from a mental asylum in Melbourne, and that previous to that he had escaped from a mental asylum in Auckland —that was the reason why the accused had tried to cover un his tracks by making statements which wore false. The Crown was not entitled to claim that the explanation of accused s attitude was that ho had stolen the money. The midday adjournment was then taken. The court ve-assembling, his Honor summed up Ho pointed out (hat there were two counts in the indictment. In the first £IOO had been stolon, and in the second £42 bad been taken. His Honor went on to review the evidence and said that the job had been carried out by an expert. It seemed reasonable to assume that the two crimes had been committed by the one person. The question for the jury to consider, was whether it had been establshed to its satisfaction that accused was responsible for those crimes. The jury had to find from tlie facts that accused was the person who must have committed the crimes. Tub Honor again referred to the evidence, and drew certain conclusions from it. Accused had ccmie as a stowaway and had no money on arrival, and had later said that he had brought over £l3O in Australian notes and had changed them for New Zealand bank notes. The bank official, who had given evidence, had said that the notes ho had received from a man, presumed to bo accused, were Now Zealand notes. It was a peculiar fact that accused should have teen in possession of so much silver. His Honor asked the jury, “Which of you gentlemen have ever carried about with you 10s in threepenny pieces?’’ On October 2 accused had sent away £2O to someone in Australia, in the name of Colin Craig, and £lO in the name of W. Pnscall, to someone else in Australia. If he had £l3O when in Australia -why had he not given the £lO to Mrs Pascall instead of cabling it? His Honor then reviewed the evidence of the taxi-cab driver nnd of Dr Spedding.as to accused’s trip to Mosgiel. If the jury were satisfied that the taxi-driver and Dr Spedding were not making any mistake about the man going out about, 8.30 p.m., arriving about 9 p.m., and leaving after 10 p.m., what did it all mean? The jury was left to draw the conclusion that he went out to Mosgiel for the purpose of robbing the Otago Farmers’ Co-operative Association’s premises. The jury had to be satisfied from the whole facts that accused was the man who committed the crimes. The jury retired at 2.45 p.m*.,, and returned at 3.8 with a verdict of guilty on both counts. Prisoner was remanded for sentence. CAUGHT RED-HANDED. Henry Urcjuhart and Janios Bunnan were charged with having on September 6, at Dunedin, broken and entered the premises of Janies John Clark with intent to commit a crime. There was a second count of being unlawfully in a dwelling house. Bin-man pleaded not guilty, and Urquhart ( pleaded to being on the premises, but not to breaking and entering. ’lhe Crown Prosecutor (Mr Adams) said that the facts were simple, and the two counts related to the same occurrence. At the time the incident occurred Mr Clark and his wife were away from Dunedin on a holiday. ’lhe house had been locked up, and there was no one about'the place at all. Shortly after 9 o’clock in the evening a Mr Alexander passing along the street heard the noise of breaking glass, and knowing that the Clarks were not at home, rang up the police. Before very long two constables arrived on the scene, and a cordon of civilians was established about the place. Sergeant Shanahan arrived later and, with a constable, entered the place by the broken window,, and found the two accused inside. Replying to a question as (c what they were doing there they said “You tell me nnd I will tell you. Shake, will you.” Later the two accused said that they had been brought to the house (by a man and left there. That statement had been elaborated by a written statement given by accused to the police. The premises were searched nnd about the flow of the room in which the accused were there were various articles belonging to Mrs Clark, Urquhart had in his possession afterwards a number of articles t-ken from the house. He stated afterwards that la did not know how he got them, Joseph Alexander (storeman). Sergeant Shanahan, Constable Paris, Constable I.ennane, and Margaret O’Brien gave evidence. His Honor said that he did not think it was necessary to cal! further evidence. The registrar road statements from the two accused in which they stated that they had been taken to Mr Clark’s house by a third man whom they did not know. The Crown Prosecutor said that he did not. desire to address the court. The accused Urquhart addressed the jury. He asked if it. wore possible that two men who had boon drinking heavily and who were under the influence of drink could, without, n light of any description, ransack n two-storey building that bad the number of rooms this house had in such a, short space of time. Was it not possible that the

noise heard by the witness Alexander was caused by the third man leaving the premises, and, if this was so, did he not have ample time to get away before the police came on the scene? y Burinan said he had no statement to make. His Honor said that the question was whether the two accused were on' the premises for the purpose of committing a crime. The stranger spoken of had disappeared in a most mysterious manner, and no one had seen him < r oing. The accused had gathered up a number of things for the purpose of taking them away. The wristlet watch, tlio property of the housekeeper (Miss O’Brien) was actually found in the pocket of one of the accused. If the accused were judged by their acts, it seemed reasonable to assume that they were there for the purpose of robbing the house. It was for the jury to say whether the accused were on the premises for the purpose of committing a crime, or whether they were only unlawfully in the house. The jury retired at 4.55, and returned at 4.55 with a verdict of guilty on the second count —-of being unlawfully on the premises. His Honor: What is known about the accused? The Crown Prosecutor: Nothing, beyond what is shown in the character reports. His Honor: Urquhart was convicted of theft in Wellington on July 16, 1915, and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. The Crown Prosecutor: Urquhart has a war service record. His Honor said that he thought the best course would be to place the men under the control of the Prisons Board for a term. He would order that they be detained for a period of three years for reformative treatment. The court then adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.