NOT GUILTY OF THEFT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23331, 25 October 1937, Page 2

NOT GUILTY OF THEFT

RECEIVING CHARGE UPHELD ONE ACCUSED ACQUITTED CONCLUSION OF RABBIT SKIN CASE The case in which Gordon Donald Mcßae, Harry Gordon and Thomas Owen Hughes were charged with the theft of rabbit skins valued at about £2BO, or with having received stolen goods, was concluded in the Supreme Court on Saturday before His Honor Mr Justice Kennedy. After a retirement of an hour and a-quarter the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty on the major counts. Mcßae was found guilty of Raving received 16 bags of skins and Gordon of receiving two bags, the goods being stolen property. Hughes was acquitted of the receiving charges preferred against him and was discharged. Gordon and Mcßae were remanded until Wednesday for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F, B. Adams) conducted the case for the Crown. Mr E. J. Anderson appeared for Mcßae, Mr J, G. Warrington for Gordon, and Mr O. G. Stevens for Hughes.

When the court resumed on Saturday morning Detective Le Sueur continued his evidence. Witness said that he and Detective Taylor went to the hut at Pine Hill and found there six bags of skins and a large number lying on the floor. In all, 16 bags were received from the hut and from Mr Black’s store. Gordon denied that either he or Hughes stole the skins, and told the detective that Mcßae had asked him to sell some skins which had been left at Pine Hill. Mcßae gave him the key of the hut. When Gordon was charged he said: “I might have known that anything Mcßae was mixed up in would be crooked.” Hughes made a statement, in which he said that Gordon asked him to sell some skins for him. Hughes agreed, and arranged for the sale of the skins to Mr Black, while Gordon waited outside. Gordon did not say where the skins came from. Hughes added that other ‘than receiving a drink or two from Gordon he got no benefit from the transaction.

Counsel for the three accused intimated that they would call no evidence.

Mr Adams traversed the case against Mcßae, referring to the discovery of fibres in the car he hired, a fact which indicated the presence of a large number of rabbit skins. Napthalene (which was used in the treatment of skins) was also found in the car. When Mcßae was being interviewed in the Detective Office and was denying any knowledge of Kennelly or the whereabouts of his store, the latter happened to come in and recognised him as a man with whom he had previously done business as “A, Scott.” The Crown Prosecutor spoke of the unsatisfactory explanation given by Mcßae as to his movements in the rental car on the night of the burglary. No explanation had been given as to how the skins got into the hut of which he had the key, The Crown did not ask for a conviction on charges of breaking, entering, and theft against Gordon, and suggested that the case against both Gordon and Hughes should be treated as one of receiving. The evidence against them was plain—that they knew they were handling stolen skins.

Mr Anderson told the jury that the evidence against Mcßae was purely circumstantial. There was nothing suspicious in his hiring a rental car and being seen in the vicinity of the warehouse. He was taking a girl home at a late hour, and there was no reason why he should not have driven slowly about the streets. Was it likely that he would have openly hired a car and used it to transport 16 bags of skins, each weighing 501 b, from the store to Pine Hill? There might have been rabbit skin fibres left in the car six months before. The Crown had not given an information as to when it was last cleaned out. It was likely also that there should be fibres on his clothing, as it had been made clear that he had been handling skins weeks before the alleged offence. Mr Warrington reminded the jury that they must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, and warned them that they must discriminate very carefully between the accused. Gordon, it would be remembered, told the police that the skins were Mcßae’s, and that Mcßae, who had gone to Christchurch, had asked him to sell them for him. Counsel conceded that the jury might have some suspicion of guilty knowledge on the part of Gordon, but that was not enough—there must be certainty.

Mr Stevens described his client as a decent, honest countryman, an unfortunate individual who had been merely used as a catspaw. The others hid from him any suggestion that the skins had been dishonestly obtained and, as the detective admitted, he was quite surprised when he did learn the truth. His Honor summed up and the jury retired at 1.10 p.m., returning at 2.25.