SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22631, 24 July 1935, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS Tire quarterly criminal sessions were continued yesterday before Mr Justice Kennedy. DEATH OF LITTLE BOY James Sylvester Henderson was charged with negligently driving a motor vehicle, thereby causing the death of a child named Arnold Patrick Healey. The hearing of evidence and the addresses by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) and counsel for the defence (Mr J. S. Sinclair) had been concluded on the previous day. His Honor, summing up, said that the jury would have to decide whether it had been proved that the accused negligently drove his motor lorry; and secondly, was the death of the boy a consequence of that negligent driving. If the answer to eacli question was “ Yes ” the proper verdict would be “ guilty.” The jury was the judge of fact, and it would come to its own independent conclusion as to what the facts were. His Honor then reviewed the evidence.

The jury retired at 25 minutes to 11 and returned at 20 past 11 with a verdict of not guilty.

BREAKING, ENTERING, AND THEFT Charles Walter Ramsay was charged with, at Dunedin, on Juno 1, 1935, breaking and entering the shop of Star Store's, Ltd., and stealing a quantity of tobacco and cigarettes of the value of £lO 14s fid; with, on or about the same date, breaking and entering the shop of Star Stores, Ltd., with intent to commit a crime therein; with, on or about January 18, 1936, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the dwelling house of David Muryay Fastier by day and stealing a quantity of toilet requisites and clothing of the value of £ll 18s fid; with stealing from the house of David Murray Fastier goods to the value of £ll 18s fid, the property of Nancy Howarth Fastier; with, on or about January 18, 1935, at Dunedin, receiving from some person or persons unknown the toilet articles, valued at £ll 18s fid, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. The accused, who was defended by Mr G. T. Baylee, pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to each of the other charges. # The Crown Prosecutor said that, the accused having pleaded guilty to the first count in the indictment, it became unnecessary to proceed with the second count, which was alternative to the first. There remained the three other counts, which were also alternatives, and he proposed to proceed with the trial of the accused on the fifth charge only—that relating to receiving stolen property knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr Adams said he would ask for an adjournment for the purpose of procuring a stay of proceedings in the second, third and fourth counts. His Honor said he would adjourn till next session of the criminal court the matter of the second, third and fourth counts of the indictment.

Nancy Howarth Fastier said that she lived with her father at 157 Victoria road, St. Clair.’ About January 18 of this year the house was unoccupied. The witness gave evidence regarding the toilet requisites and clothing on exhibit before the court which, she said, had been missed from the house and which were her property. There were other articles not on exhibit which had been missed from the house.

Margaret Fastier, a sister of the previous witness, said that the doors of their house were all locked, but a window in the kitchen was broken. She had visited the house and had found it had been broken into. Other articles besides those on exhibit had been taken from the house.

Dorothy Madigan said that ehe had known the accused for two years and a-half. The toilet requisites on exhibition before the court had been given to her by the accused. The nightdress, stockings, gloves and the purse were sent to her first by the accused, and the xylonite set was handed to her by the accused. The first lot of the articles was sent to her from Oamaru. The accused had told her he had bought the nightdress, gloves and purse from a man in Oamaru. He had not said where he got the other articles from. When she had received the articles she had had no idea that they had been stolen. The accused had bought a bicycle for her at Christmas time. Detective Marsh said that he had received the articles from Dorothy Madigan on June 3, 1935 He had then interviewed the accused and asked him where he got the articles from. The accused had made a statement in which he said that he had given Dorothy Madigan certain of the articles on exhibit. He had bought the articles, he stated, for cash from a man at Oamaru whom he did not know. He thought he gave 15s for them. When he had bought the articles he did not know that they had been stolen. The accused denied having stolen them.

Witness produced a certificate showing that the accused had been found guilty of breaking and entering at Dunedin in 1932 and had been ordered to bo detained for reformative purposes by Mr Justice Kennedy for a period of 18 months.

To Mr Baylce: A white silk dress and a clock had also been given to him by Dorothy Madigan. The girl said she was not sure, but she believed that the white silk dress had come in the parcel sent by the accused from Oamaru. t The fact that these two articles had not* been stolen from anybody had not been proved. Mr Baylee said that he intended to call evidence.

The accused, in evidence, said that the articles received by Dorothy Madigan had been sent by somebody else from Oamaru at his request. He had written the address. There had been a white silk dress in the parcel, which had been despatched to Dunedin just before Easter. He had brought the other articles to Dunedin himself. The accused said he bad been in Oamaru for two months and a-half. Ho had bought a car and had gone down the main street. He had gone into a billiard room and had come down again, and he was going to get into his car when he was accosted by a gentleman. The man had asked witness if he was interested in ( a polish to clean the windscreen of the car. Witness said he was not interested, and the man then asked him if he had a lady in town who might be interested in articles of apparel. The goods were in a suit case. There were other articles in the suit case besides the goods before the court. The conversation took place beside the car. He had said he would give the man 15s for certain of the goods, and lie had paid 15s. There was a white silk dress in the purchase. Ho did not know the man’s name, and he had not met him before this occasion. The man apparently knew him. The transaction took place at half-past 3, and he arrived homo about 5 o'clock. His brother was in the room at the boarding house, and he had shown him the goods. His brother had remarked that" he had got the goods pretty cheap. He had had no reason to believe that.the goods had been stolen. Cross-examined, the witness said that the polish which the man wanted to sell him at Oamaru was in a tin. The man carried it in his pocket. He had had a car alwut a month. He was paying it off. He could not remember whether it was a fine day or not. Witness then agreed that it was a fine day. Witness admitted that he had been convicted at Oamaru on June 25 this year for the theft of a shooting bag, with some tools,

and that he was at present undergoing imprisonment for that conviction. In September, 1929, he had been convicted on seven charges of breaking, entering, and theft, and on three charges of attempting to break and enter with intent to commit a crime, and had been committed for two years at the Borstal Institute.

James Ramsay, living at Dunedin, said that he had invited his brother to come to Oamaru. Witness corroborated his brother’s story regarding the purchase of the goods. He had never seen the articles till his brother brought them to the boarding house. Addressing the jury, Mr Baylee said they were asked to consider whether the accused was telling the truth regarding the. manner in which he became possessed of the articles. Counsel said that once a man was convicted it did not follow that he was guilty of another later alleged offence. The accused had gone into the witness box and had corroborated the statement ha had made to the police regarding the manner of his purchase of the goods, and his story had been confirmed in certain essential particulars by his brother. If the accused had bought the goods he had bought the lot, and included in the parcel sent to Miss Madigan was the white silk dress, and this dress had not been stolen from the Fastiors’ house. The Crown had omitted nothing at all which would go to establish the guilt of the accused, if the Crown’s view was correct.

The Crown Prosecutor said he would like to alter the amount in the cost of the goods from £ll 18s fid to ffi, and his Honor agreed. The Crown Prosecutor said that the recent possession of stolen goods went to show that either a person was the actual thief or that he had received them knowing them to have been stolen. He enumerated the previous convictions against the accused and said that they had been put before the jury os material which they could properly consider in coming to a decision whether the story of the accused, should be believed. The story about the bargaining in regard to the purchase of the goods at Oamaru had not previously been told to the police. He held that there was recent possession by the accused of the stolen goods—within two of three weeks from their disappearance from the Fastiers home. The position was simply this—did they or did they not believe the story of the accused?

His Honor, summing up, stated that before the accused could be convicted the jury must be satisfied, first, that he received the goods mentioned in the charge; secondly, that the goods had been obtained by crime; and, thirdly, that the accused, if be did receive them, knew that they had been obtained dishonestly. He then discussed the evidence in relation to these points. The jury retired at 3.15 and returned at 8.55 with a verdict of guilty.

The prisoner was remanded until Friday for sentence.