ALLEGED ROBBERY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24431, 17 October 1940, Page 3

ALLEGED ROBBERY

INCIDENT AT PORT CHALMERS FIVE YOUTHS CHARGED CASE FOR THE DEFENCE Ten witnesses were heard in the Supreme Court yesterday', six of them for the defence, when the case against five youths involving charges of robbery with violence and assault was continued before Mr Justice Kennedy. Mr W. J. Meade opened the case for the defence in the morning and the evidence was net concluded when the court rose until this morning. The five accused were David Waller McConachy, John Huntley Curtis, Peter Arthur James Clough, Stuart Humphrey Wilson and Albert James McNaughton, who were charged with robbing Rowland Eyre Hayward of a bunch of keys and £2 in notes. There were alternative charges of assault, causing actual bodily harm, assault causing actual bodily harm so that u death had been caused they would have been guilty of manslaughter and common assault. Mr F. B Adams conducted the Crown’s case. . Continuing his evidence, Constable Robertson said that when he searched the wharf near the scene of the incident he found nothing, but later on a bunch of keys was found close to a bollard from which witness had commenced his measurements. The keys could not have been there when he first searched for them. . Evidence regarding the finding ot the bunch of keys was given by Leslie James Cain and Elizabeth Jackson Reeves gave evidence regarding tne statements made by the complainant outside the police station after the mCl< Angus William McDougall, a detective, produced the statements made to him by the five accused. In the statements four of the accused admitted that they had thrown Hayward into the water, but Wilson, who had re fused to sign his statement said that Hayward had tripped and fallen into, the harbour. The Defence Opened Opening the defence, Mr Meade said that the statements made by the nve accused to the police gave their account of the incident on the wharf and the same reason for it was given m each case—the treatment of Clough by the complainant, Hayward It was obvious that there must have been something serious to have caused the trouble Each of the accused flatly denied and would do so in evidence, that he pm his hands into the complainants pockets or took anything. Mr Meade drew attention to the fact that two witnesses who had been called by the prosecution in the lower court did not give evidence in the Supreme Court. They would be called by the defence to state what steps- had been taken after Hayward had been thrown into the harbour. Constables Craig and Thompson would also be called, and the jury would be able to judge the truth of Hayward’s evidence when he denied that Constable Craig had made statements attributed to him. The accused Clough in evidence outlined the circumstances which led up to his arrival in Dunedin from Timaru stating that he had received a telegram from Hayward asking him if he could start work on Hayward’s launch the following week. When he arrived he was told that the job was filled, but that he should not have any difficulty in finding work. Hayward did not say anything about paying witness’s expenses. Witness described the arrangement between the' five accused to demand an explanation from Hayward of his treatment to witness, aqd said that they accosted him as he came off his boat. Hayward refused to pay witness’s return fare to Timaru, and after a heated conversation started to walk away. Two of them started to stop him. and Hayward tried to strike them. They all grabbed him. and someone said: “ Let’s give him a ducking.” They pushed him over the wharf. During the struggle no one went through Hayward’s pockets, and he was sure no one struck the complainant. They watched Hayward swim to a pile, and then a man named James Craig and another man came up, the former stating that Hayward would be all right, as Ledgerwood’s boat was going across to him. At one stage McNaughton was preparing to go into the water after Hayward. Cross-examined by Mr Adams, witness denied that there had been an arrangement to throw Hayward into the harbour, or that a number of men at the wharf knew what was going to Lj done to Hayward. Corroborative Evidence Albert James McNaughton, who gave his account of the affair, denied that he had stood on Hayward’s fingers while he was hanging on to the edge of the wharf. Ledgerwood had come up. pushed them ail aside, and had tried to help Hayward up. but the complainant had slipped into the water. Corroborative evidence regarding the affair was given by the other three accused—Wilson. McConachy and Curtis.

William Ledgerwood, a fisherman said be saw a group of men arguing on the wharf, but at that time he did not know who they were. He saw the five accused grouped round the complainant and then he heard someone say: “ He’s overboard.” He ran over and found Hayward hanging by his hands from the edge of the wharf, but as witness leaned over to cadch him he let go. None of the accused trod on Hayward’s fingers; they were all standing back from the edge of the wharf. Witness saw that Hayward was hanging on to a pile, and then ran over and started up his launch going to Hayward’s rescue. At this stage the court adjourned until this morning.