SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20707, 3 May 1929, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

. ■ CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before bis Honor, Mr Justice Smith.) .:Tho quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were' continued yesterday before his Honor, Mr Justice Smith. ALLEGED THEFT OF TOBACCO. hearing was continued of the case iff which Henry George Parsons and William Stewart Scott were charged with, on September 13, 1928, and on various dates to December 10, stealing quantities of tobacco ami cigarettes, of a total value pf £SO, the property of James Rattray and Son, Parsons being a servant of the company. Scott was also charged with Jtnpiving the same to have been dishonestly obtained, receiving ' from Parsons quantities of tobacco and cigarettes, of a total value of £SO. Parsons and Scott were further conjointly charged' with knowing the. same, to have been dishonestly obtained, receiving i from some person unknown tobacco and cigarettes of a value of £SO, the property of James Rattray and. Son. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for Parsons and Mr C. J. L, White for Scott; Both the accused had pleaded not guilty. -The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) continued his opening address to tiie jury. Traversing the statement made by the accused Scott to the police, Mr Adams said that from September 13 till November 27 the . amounts of the cheques received by Parsons from Scott were £7, £9,. £5, £4, £5 and £9, these amounts £39, and with the cheque of £l3,_ which came into Mr Elvidge’s possession, representing £52. ..This covered roughly the figure of £59, the value of the tobacco the Crown alleged to have been stolen ,by Parsons and handed by him to Scott. Scott’s statement said that at no time had he received aspirins from Parsons.' He did not-stock either asperos Ojf aspirins. l ’ There, was nothing whatever, said the Crown Proseuctor, to suggest that either of the accused had done ahything wrong so far as these articles were concerned. All the jury had to do ■with was is connection with orders sent to Thomson by Parsons. Referring to the orders received by Parsons from Scott to be -sent on to Thomson, the Crown Prosecutor said that Scott did not specify what he wanted "for his trade when he wrote to Parsons, but simply accepted what Thomson had for sale. A day or two later; £[cott had made another statement to the police in which he admitted that the last letter sent to Parsons, signed “ Bill," and inadvertently opened by’Mr Elvidge, was in his handwriting. This, particular letter was not an order at all, merely a. kind of suggestion intended for Thomson, so that he could supply certain brands of tobacco if. he could, and if he could not that ho could supply any other old brands of tobacco. The detectives had again seen Scott, and had discovered that there were "other cheques for small amounts, but Scott would not give, authority to have these Reduced, and he finally said, “I have nothing to say about the matter." The Grown Prosecutor said that Scott was a Storekeeper familiar with trade, and yet they found him dealing in tobacco’ at a lower price than the warehouses could ee.. it. They did not know'what these prices were. Secondly they found that these transactions were carried out in a Tfecnhar manner, with two principals—ocott.the buyer and Thomson, the vender, and Parsons, the intermediary—but he suggested that Parsons wqa not an intermediary, but a principal These dealings were proceeding systematically. The accused Parsons was not disconnected from toe tobacco trade; be was an employee f « merchant’s store, and.he had access Ti rmß it S i oek ,? f 4116 tobacco. Scott knew full well that Rattray’s were dealers that Parsons was employed' there, and he must have had his suspicious aroused, even if he had not W ed ? e ’ as ? Ir A dams said he would suggest was the case. g 0 far as Scott was concerned, he. thought they ehA d thU OBly - on , e . ray of hope for him 7 mad this was in the man Thomson. If 5 were unable to produce t| en he would that the only inference they could fairly draw on the (pets was that Scott knew full well what was being done—namely, that tobacco was is I *» ° rder , AdamS ’ 8 address ; occupied two Owen Davies, an assistant salesman employed by J Rnttmir a that when stock of tobS was tak”n s fl ? e £ mber was a shortage of P en °d of three months, When 8^ 6k he had no suspicion oil v ea kage, The stolen tobaca) could been carted away in TonAon Tw£^ de^c^ Eenry cashier of Messrs Rattray and Son, gave evidence % taking out of certain fiS mating to the tobacco stocks of the firm' George William Palmer, a shippina en ?P.° ye d by J. Rattray and Son Sorh^! garding taking Wilkinson, a director of the firm, said that he had .taken particutaken*™ t 0 866 tbat stock was corr ectly * Admmi: x ? it possible for tobacco cers? Ugg ed la past the Customs off!- • I have never known of it P, 40 ,, yeare experience. It is brought into the country in largo cases. - John Elvidge, sales manager for the ga Y e evidence regarding the taking i of tobacco.. He cleared the firm s letters one day m September, and accidentally opened a letter addressed to Parsons. He had found in a letter and a cheque from .Scott. The next day behanded the letter and the cheque to the police. Scott was pot one of their customers, and they, had never sold him tobacco. His .firm had ’not sold tobacco to Parsons. Parsons had access to their free store tobacco. He was a storeman putting 'Up parcels and handing them to the carters. He had been in the firm’s employ.for about 17 years. Percy Rodgers was. also a storeman with the firm, bm had . left about a year before the irregularities had taken place. His firm had never had any dealings with a man named

Sinclair: Until he had opened the letter he had no suspicious that anvthing wrong was going on in the store, up till then he had always considered Parsons a respectable man. • He had not called in Parsons at once, when he found the letter, because he did not think it was the right thing to do. They did not keep any permanent books showing their stocks at the end of each year. They carried such large and varied stock* that it was impossible to do this. He was amazed to . find that , there wae such a heavy deficit in the tobacco stocks. They had had no suspicions until the - letter was opened. , It was quite possible foi tobacco of the amount named to be taken, because a small package of tobacco cost a considerable amount of money. Moreover, they had the greatest confidence in Parsons.

Horace Ncwburn Miller, a storeman in -j e l" pl0 ? Mackerras and Hazlett, said that he had gone messages for Parsons on three occasions that he remembered. He took one parcel to Hamilton’s Tea Rooms, in Stuart street, and two to Townsends, in Lower- High street. The parcels were of a size which made them easily carried, but he did not know whether they were addressed. On two of the occasions Parsons gave him 50 cigarettes. When Parsons asked him a fourth time to go a message he said that he was too busy.

Ernest Edward Hornibrook, a carrier of Mosgiel, said that he had known the accused for some time. Early in December Parsons, who was outside Rattray’s gave him two or three left luggage tickets for parcels for Scott. He delivered the parcels and Scott paid him. Later he was given some more tickets by Parsons at Paterson’s auction 'room, and he delivered a further parcel to Scott. , To Mr White, witness said that he did roost of Scott’s carting, and had picked up parcels for him from other firms. Ngaire Hutchison, employed in the Tivoli Tea Rooms, said that Scott had been in the habit of leaving parcels in the shop on Thursday afternoons. She did not know Parsons, and had never seen him in the shop. She did not know of any man named Thomson leaving parcels. One afternoon Scott filled an attache case with plug tobacco, which he'took out of his pockets. To Mr White, witness said that people travelling on trains frequently left parcels In the shop, and it was quite common for

people to leave parcels for Scott to call for. Robert Henry Davy, a barman at the Terminus Hotel, said that he knew the two accused. .He had never received letters or parcels from Parsons to deliver to Thomson. His Honor told the jury that the rest of the evidence of this witness relating to Thomson was not evidence against Scott, because it was Parsons who had made the allegations regarding Thomson. Witness said he did not know any man named J. Thomson, To Mr Sinclair: Witness said that letters were never left in the bar unless they were for the proprietor. William Dawkins, who was last year the licensee of the Terminus Hotel, said that he had never received letters from anybody to deliver to J. Thomson. He had cashed. three cheques for Parsons, each being signed by Scott. Frank William Alexander Barnett, a radio dealer, said that his firm supplied Parsons with a wireless set. The cheque which was received was signed “ W. S: ■Scott.” James Fraser, a contractor, said that he had cashed three cheques for Parsons, each bearing the name J. Scott. Detective Russell described an interview which he had had with' the accused Parsons, who said that he was not prepared to say where he got the tobacco which he supplied to Scott. Witness read a statement which Parsons made. Witness and Detective Roycroft went to see Scott, who became hostile and refused to discuss the matter. He then promised to call at the detective office. Later Parsons made a second statement, and Scott called at the detective office and made a statement. Witness went to Mosgiel, where Scott showed him some cheques which had been procured from the Bank of New Zealand at Mosgiel. He said that he had sent them to Parsons to hand over to J. Thomson, adding, “ I suppose I am cutting my own throat giving you these.” Witness had made exhaustive inquiries regarding Thomson, but had been unable to find him. To Mr Sinclair: Parsons went to the police station at 4 o’clock, and he stayed there till 10 o’clock. Parsons agreed to stay. He could not say whether he (Parsons) was being interrogated all the time, as he was not there. Parsons was interrogated by the chief detective. Detective Roycroft corroborated the evidence of Detective Russell. He said that Parsons stated that Thomson stayed at Branson’s Hofei, and was known to the barman Reid. Witness went to the hotel with Parsons, and Reid said he knew Parsons. ' Parsons said, “ Do you remember me being in . the hotel with two men, one ?C tb £ m - P ei “K Thomson?” Reid replied that he did not know a man named Thomson. Witness told Parsons that it was m his own interests to find Thomson. The witness Hornibrook, recalled, said that it was Scott who had asked him to P1 an. up tae Parcels from the Tivoli. The Crown Prosecutor said he would 1 if pa 1 * Chief Detective Cameron to tell what took place at the Police Station, where Parsons was said to have been kept for six hours. Chief Detective Cameron said he told Parsons that it was in his interests that Scott should be seen, and he suggested that they, should see Scott before Parsons had an opportunity of seeing him. He said he proposed to send Detectives Russel] and Roycroft at once to Moa-viel to see Scott. Parsons agreed to stay at-the statjon till the detectives returned and had bis tea at the Police Station. He discussed the case with Parsons for about 20 minutes or half an hour. That was the on.y interrogation Parsons was subjected to by him. ~ Chief Detective Cameron said he had told Parsons it would be in his own interests that the detectives saw Scott before he (Parsons) had an opportunity him, and Parsons agreed. To Mr Sinclair; He first saw Parsons about 5 o clock. He had the accused’s statement before him, and he got a few additional particulars from him. He had his tea and then returned. Mr Sinclair: Did you keep on- -interrogating the witness. Chief Detective Cameron: Rubbish! Rubbish! Mr Sinclair: The man says that in the course of the discussion you threatened to put him into the cell. . Chief Detective Cameron (impatiently): Rubbish! Rubbish!. His Honor said that a statement likethat should not be made unless it was supported by evidence, and no counsel should do 'it.'; Mr. Sinclair; I. beg your- Honor’s pardon if I have transgressed. Mr Sinclair; He was at the station from 4 o’clock till 10 o’clock. Chief Detective Cameron said that as soon as he got a reply from Mosgiel from the detectives he let Parsons go home. They did not do things by half measures. Parsons knew Scott. They did not. To Mr Adams: -Parsons was quite in agreement that Scott should be seen, 1 Counsel said that they did not intend to callany evidence. ' ■ Mr Sinclair, in his address to the jury, said he was prepared to admit that as far as Parsons, for whom be was appearing, concerned, there was ground for suspicion, but he. said this, and said- if strenuously, that they could, not jonviqt upoU'suspicion alone, no matter how strong it might be. Counsel said that there was very strange feature about the case ' The inquiry had started on December 12 of last year, when the letter was opened by Mr Elvidge. The police, no doubtrequired some time to work up their case, and in the first week in Januaiy they hud asked Rattray’s to make up a stock -shoot. and it was only then that Rattray’s discovered that any tobacco had been stoles from them—that they had. lost £BOO worth of tobacco in three months. Despite, however, all the evidence which had been gathered by the police, Parsons had not been arrested until late in February, an interval of about two months. He' gested that the reason for this was because the po.ice could not get positive evidence of identification of the goegite, which they knew perfectly well they must supply to the jury in order to find ibe man guilty. If the police had all tlmse doubts about the identity of this tobiuco might he suggest that the iury should have just as strong a doubt. There was not a pdrticle of evidence to prove that ■any tobacco belonging to Rattray’s had found its way to Scott. Despite all the time spent by the police to get these stia£emerita, despite all the contradictions in the statements, he would submit that the jury was entitled to give the fairest eonsiiiffation to Parsons’s statement that he was merely , an intermediary for the handling t i. ii e ROods an{ J receiving monev on behalf of Thomson, and consider that Thomson was the principal in the whole affair. He held that the crux of thq case was the answer to this question, “Is it possible that the accused’s story may be true? ” If they were satisfied that it was possible, could they convict—<*nilcl they conscientiously find the man gtßty? Because Thomson could not be s*md were they going to say that Parsons was a har—tnat Thomson was a myth?. He suggested that it was perfectly rajtibnal that Thomson could not be found cf he was concerned in transactions which \|nuld not bear the light of day. and ft I was also perfectly reasonable to suppose that other witnesses concerned in the in their own interests would deny tha* they knew anything about it. Counsel, submitted that on the question of identifies tion of the tobacco alone he was eijiilled to ask that Parsons be acquitted, and went on to state that the police would have little difficulty in discovering witethci any “Riverhead ” tobacco in the posse* sion of Rattrays had gone into Scott’s possession, as each tin had a special marking. Counsel went on to state that a mistake might have been made when the stocktaking of the tobacco was made late last year, and that if that wtSe so. then the figures could not be connect so far as the special stock taking on January 3 was concerned. Could they believe that £795 worth of goods had gone astray in the short period mentioned? He was sure they could not. It was perfectly obvious that someone had blundered About £66 worth of tobacco was gonv> astray every week, and no suspicion was aroused until the letter was fourth The stocktaking on January 3 was carried out with meticulous care, but they had no evidence that there w.as the same care at the annual stocktaking in was quite possible that a mistake had been made, and that no goods l»vd been wrongfully taken from Rattrays. He challenged the Crown to produce identification of any of the goods, and tt had not done so. To sum up he would say that there was no evidence that the accused Parsons stole any tobacco; secondly, that there was no evidence that he stole any of Rattrays’ tobacco; and, thirdly, that there was no evidence that any ol the tobacco in the possession of Scott was Rattrays’. Moreover, it .was quite possible that the story told by Parsons in regard to the man Thomson' was true — that there was a Mr Thomson. Mr White, in addressing the jury, submitted that the reason why the Crown had

preferred bo many charges against the two accutSitd, was that the jury might be influenced by the number ol counts to compromise and convict on one of them. The only way in which the jury might compromise was by acquitting. The mere fact that Parsons might be guilty did not establish the case against Scott. The Crown Ijad to. prove not only that the accused received the tobacco, but that they it to have been stolen. The tobacco was definitely identifiable, and it was <pen to the police to find it in the possession of both, but they nad failed to do so. The biggest item was four boxes 9f “ Riverhead " tobacco, which could be identified, but no trace of it had been found. Suspicion was not proof, and the Crown must have definite prooL The Crown suggested that the two accused might have put their heads together and invented the story about Thomson, but the faijt remained that both had mentioned Thomson- in their first statements to the police. A point to hear in mind was tine fact' that such a lengthy time elapsed before the accused were arrested, in spihe of all the methods known to the secret -service of the police. The Crown suggested that the police was so anxious to pnpve the innocence of the accused that it aH>wed a lengthy time to elapse before the Recused were arrested. It was the first ,time in his life that he had known them to be so anxious to help the police. The, police had been hammering away to try to get. admissions from the accused, and had finally had to go ahead. They had had no fewer than six interviews to try to get something in the nature of proof when. if Scott was guilty, they could have obtained definite evidence from the shop. It was all circumstantial evidence, and the jury had heard enough to know how much it could be trusted. But that was what it was asked. to convict on. Wor this not just a case of a man wanting to get a bargain? He was a strugfling man trying to get tobacco cheap. Iverybody was out for that sort of thing. The jury could not convict a man for being foolhardy, but the Crown had to prove that he had acted criminally. Septt said that Rodgers told him he could get him tobacco at cost price. Why wae Rodgers not there to prove that the. statement was incorrect? In the case of a criminal act one would expect to find secrecy, but the Crown's idea of that was the passing of cheques, which left a definite trail behind them. Parsons had broadeast them all over the town, and the Crown asked the jury to believe that it was the act of a criminal. He suggested that the accused had-been open in. every respect. Three -of the six •brands mentioned in Scott’s letter to Parsons did not appear in Rattray’s list of their stock. if it was so easy for the -stock to go out in small amounts, why ■did Scott not confine his dealings to Parsons? But he showed the detectives ao■counts from two firms. Scott had naturally been hostile to the police at first, but he bad later volunteered to give an •explanation, and had obtained cheques from the bank for the information of the police.

His Honor, in summing up. said that nobody had actually seen the accused take stock from the warehouse, and there was, therefore.no direct evidence. What the jury had was circumstantial evidence, which, however, might even 'be stronger than direct evidence. The jury had to apply its minds to the question and decide whether the evidence was strong enough to enable it to convict. Rattray’s had taken stock in September and January, and. it was possible that the stocktaking in September was not correct. Apart altogether from the question of Thomson, there was a clear chain of circumstantial evidence between Parsons and Scott, Was 1 there a system by which parcels were 1 transferred from Parsons to Scott othe, than in a direct manner? The money which Parsons received from Scott was by cheque, and Parsons said that the money was to be handed on to Thomson. But Parsons c heel the cheques, and, in addition, bought a radio set. The point whether the police knew that Riverhead tobacco could be identified was also a question for the jury's consideration. If it were identifiable, the first thing that a person who gained it dishonestly would do would be to get rid of it at once. The jury had to use its judgment as to the' proper solution of the existence or tion-existence of Thomson. It was for them to say whether Thomson ever existed. He could not be found, and nobody knew him. If they came to the conclusion that Thomson did not exist, then they must take a serious view of the case against the two accused, because Scott also admitted the existence of Thomson, although he stated that he had never met him. Then they had the accused Parson’s contradictions regarding the transaction.) with the cheques, and also in regard to the purchase of the radio set. Dealing with the charge against Scott, his Honor quoted from the letter which Mr Elvidge had accidentally opened. It started,. " Dear Harry,” and referred to some items which Kattray g did not stock. It concluded; 111 give you a list on Thursday.” What that referred to-they did not know. It indicated, however, some sort of system between the two. When Scott had handed over the cheques to the police, he had stated, _ I suppose I am cutting my own, ( throat in handing these cheques to you. This was a significant statement to make under the circumstances. The first statement made to the detectives by Scott showed a direct connection with Kattray a. because Rodgers had been emRattray*B. and they were entitled to consider this point in deciding whether it was Rattray’s tobacco or not. they had then to consider Parson’s statemen when he stated that it was nbt likely that they would now be able to discover ihomson. seeing that news of the theft over the toTvn - This showed that if Thomson existed he existed in connection with Rattray’s. The .jury retired at half-past 5, and returned at five minutes past C with a verdict of Not guilty M on all counts.