BURGLARY CHARGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22712, 26 October 1935, Page 7

BURGLARY CHARGE

ACCUSED ACQUITTED PLEADS GUILTY TO RECEIVING A verdict of not guilty on both counts was returned by the jury_ yesterday in the case in which David Littlejohn Brunton was charged with, on or about September 8, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the shop of Messrs A. N. Smith and Co., Ltd., and committing the crime of theft by stealing money and a number of postal notes of a value of £4O Os 10d, and with on or about the same date steal ing moneys and a number of postal notes of a total value of £4O Os lOd, the property of Messrs A. N. Smith and Co., Ltd. The accused, who was represented by Mr V. S. Anderson, had pleaded guilty to, on or about the same date, receiving from some person or persons unknown four postal notes of a total value of £2 5a 2d, the property of Messrs A. N. Smith and Co., Ltd., before then stolen, the accused at the time well knowing them te have been dishonestly obtained. Outlining the case, the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said that the facts were simple, although a number of witnesses had been called to prove them. The premises of the company, which, he understood, was known as Messrs A. Smith and Co., Ltd., were in George street, and there the firm carried on the business of drapers. On Saturday, September 7, the premises were locked up at 12.45 p.m. On Monday morning when they were opened it was found that they had been broken into. A leadlight had been broken open and the bare forced, while a rope was hanging down into the shop. The shop, it was found, had been ransacked and a sum of £<l9 11s 1-id had been taken from the bottom of the cash box, while 9s B}d had been taken from the same box, but from a separate compartment. Whoever the thief had been, he had broken and entered the premises, so that the Crown asked the jury to direct its attention to the first count. If it was satisfied that the accused was the thief, the very fact that he was the thief was sufficient evidence that he had broken and entered the premises. The evidence for the Crown was circumstantial, and there was a possibility that the accused may have been associated with another person or persons in committing the crime, but that was immaterial in point of law. Among the articles stolen were a number of postal notes, four of which had been traced. They had been passed by the accused at dates shortly following the commission of the crime. On September 2(5 the accused was charged with the crime, so that the total period which he had had to dispose of the notes was 18 days. The case might be described as one of a fairly common type, based on what was called recent possession of stolen goods. The doctrine of the law was that the recent possession of stolen goods was evidence on which a jury, in the absence of a reasonable explanation by the accused, might legitimately infer that he was the thief or that he had received them knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. Counsel contended that on the evidence the proper inference was that the goods had been stolen and not received. The. case for the Crown rested not so much on the mere possession of the four postal notes, but rather on the absence on the part of the accused, not so much of a reasonable explanation, but of any explanation at all how they came into his possession. In the absence of such reasonable explanation, the _ evidence, counsel contended, was conclusive and the proper inference to draw was that the accused was the thief. Arthur Nalder Smith, manager of Messrs A. Smith and Co., Ltd., said that on September 7 he himself _ securely locked the premises. He visited the premises on the Sunday and again locked them before leaving. Witness gave evidence regarding hie return to the shop on the Monday and finding that the premises had been broken into and £4O Os lOd stolen from the cash box. He also gave particulars of postal notes which had been stolen. Anne Eowena Hore (Patearoa) gave evidence that a postal note for 11s Cd bad been enclosed by her husband in a letter addressed to Messrs A. Smith and Co., Ltd. George Ernest Harrison, manager of Messrs Stewart, Dawson, Ltd., said that on September 20 he received a postal note for Us 6d from the accused when he called for a ring which he had sent for repair on June 21, 1934. Kona Evelyn Moir (Palmerston) said that cm' September 3 a postal note for 7e had been sent by her to the firm of Messrs A. Smith and Co., Ltd. Robsrt William Timlin said he saw the accused in the bar of the St. Hilda Hotel on either September 19 or 20. He paid for a glass of beer with a postal, note. To Mr Anderson: He passed over the postal note quite openly. Peter Timlin, barman at the St. Hilda Hotel, said he saw the accused in the bar of the hotel round about September 22. He had a gliss of beer and paid for it with a postal note for 7s. Thomas Matthew Graham (Naseby) said that on September 2 he posted a letter to Messrs A. Smith and Co., Ltd., enclosing a postal note for 11s 6d. William Edward Behrens, postmaster at Naseby, said he had issued a postal note for 11s 6d on September 2. James Callister, an employee in the Self Help store in Cargill road, said that the accused came into the shop on _&eptember 13 and bought a packet of cigarettes, tendering in return a postal note for 11s Cd. James Durie, branch manager of the same store, gave corroborative evidence. David Alexander Bayley, postmaster at Roxburgh, said he posted a letter on September 2 to Messrs A. Smith and Co., Ltd., enclosing a postal note for 14s Cd with two penny stamps affixed. Detective Taylor gave evidence regarding the manner in which the premises had been entered. On September 20 he interviewed the accused. Witness asked him if he had cashed any postal,notes in the city or suburbs within the past month and he had replied in the negative. He said he had paid for a ring, at Stewart, Dawson’s in cash. To Mr Anderson, witness said that three adjoining places had been broken into on the same week-end. He thought that in each case it was the work of the same person or persons. When the accused was taken to the detective office he was thoroughly searched, but nothing was found that would connect him with the burglary at Smith’s. A search of the accused’s house was made at the same time, and again nothing to connect him with the crime was found. Acting Detective Wells gave corroborative evidence. John Sinclair Clark, barman of the Gridiron Hotel, said that the accused bou< T hl a drink in the hotel and paid for It with a postal note for 14s Bd. This concluded the hearing of evidence, Mr Anderson stating that he did not intend to call any witnesses. Mr Adams said the main evidence was that of the police regarding their interview with the accused, coupled with the evidence of the four persons regarding the passing of the notes. Counsel stressed the fact that the only explanation given by the accused to account for his possession of the notes was a denial that he had passed any. The accused in his plea admitted that he had been the possessor of the notes, but claimed that he was merely the receiver of the stolen property and not the thief. If he were merely the receiver, he should have explained how he received the notes and what was their source. He asked the jury, in the absence of that explana-

tion. to convict the accused, preferably on the charge of breaking and entering. Mr Anderson said that if the jury accepted the plea that the accused had received the money, he should be acquitted on the other two counts. He emphasised the fact that suspicion was not proof. From the evidence which had been presented by the Crown, they were loft in the position that they were required to draw an inference. Slight inference was not sufficient because that amounted to no more than suspicion. Counsel said that the property which the accused had in his possession was negotiable postal notes, and it was on the passing of such negotiable documents that the Crown based its inference. The jury was asked, moreover, to draw an inference on the fact that a sum of £2 5s 2d had been accounted for in the notes which had been traced by. the police. That was the only portion of the sum of £4O 0a lOd of which evidence could be placed before them, despite the extensive investigations which had been made into the case by the police. The inference which could be based on that fact was so slight that it could be called no more than a conjecture. The detectives could find no further notes on the person of the accused or in his home. A large number of notes was shown to be missing. Why were not some of the other notes found when the accused was without warning searched by the police? Mr Anderson went on to say that the notes had been passed over openly. Was that the action of a man who had stolen them, or was it not rather the action of a man wdio had received them from someone else? It might almost be inferred that he did not know they were stolen. The explanation of his possession of the four notes was contained in his plea—that he received them from someone else. After hia Honor had summed up, the jury retired at 12.50 p.m. It returned at 2.40 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty on both the first and second counts. His Honor remanded the prisoner in custody till this morning for sentence on the charge to which he had pleaded guilty.