Wednesday, June 1. Alleged Stealing from the railways.

Otago Witness, Issue 2310, 9 June 1898, Page 19

Wednesday, June 1. Alleged Stealing from the railways.

William Browg and William Lowen were charged wiih." breaking into the railway goo3s &hcd at Kokonga and stealing tborefrom a quantity of tea and tobacco. < '" ~~

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Eraser) conducted the case for the prosecution, Mr Solomon appeared for the prisone? Lowen, and Mr Sim for" the prisoner Brown. Both pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor having briefly recited the particulars of the case, Evidence was given by George Travis (railway porter at Kokonga), James Croft (forwarding agent at Kokonga), Ruetaie Clunie, Bose Ann KoJan, Robert Wallace, and Jlobe'rt Sfeepbsrd. '

William -Simpson, employed by James Croft forwarding agent at Kckonga, said hfc v.-o^r« ( principally about th* railway yard ».\ K«koiiga He remembered Lawen telling him "ob the SS..L January that be had got a key which fitted the padlock on the goods shed. He said that hi and Brown had been in tae shed at Hyde. That was before "the station was at ELokortga. Lowen said that they were too slow at Kokoßgat, and. that he would have to come up. Witness »&,w him at 6or 7 o'clock in the evening of the same day. He.said they would tiy the key that night. He bac. a trolly withliiai, and he said he would go away and But it on one aide. Three-quartera of an hour

later witness went to Meade's camp, where the accused Hved. Before ipeakins; tn LoweD, Brown • »ld him thut he had altered the key to fit S the padlock of the shed. Lowen afterwards ; I arrived. They discussed- whether Travis would i i be at home, and they suggested witness should j Igoup to ih« hut. and see. He went up, aud saw ' [no Jight. He shen returned to Meade's, aoti ! found no one tbere. He then went 'to the ra,il- ' way station, aod met Browa and Lowea going j | back to tbe camp. They all then went back to | the good? shed. On the way Brown said he did I not care about the job, and Lowen remarked that .he had not thought that Brown was a cocktail. I They then walked to the shed. "As they were ! going Loweu asked Brown to give him the key. i The two accused went to the shed, and Lowen unlocked the padlock. Witness stepped fer a f«\v miautps between the tnieka. The donr ! opened, and Browa cams out and handed wit- 1 ness a package of tobacco. Witness laid ifc ! on the ground where be ,-<vas standing.' between the trucks. He walked up the side of the line a little bit. When he came back Brown ', was there trying to pull a box out of the door oi j the goods shed. Lowen was holding the box on ohe • inside. They got it out. They carried the things \ up to Meade's camp, Lowen carrying the box on { his shoulders The box contained tea. They 'nsrst i ifc opsn and poured the tea into a sack. They 'bin filled the box with earth and brought it back to j the goods shei, and deposited it where ifc h.H.r! been i before. Browa had the tobacco, a-ad offered '. witness three plugs. He, however, only took one, as he said it was not safe. He said, "AH right, you can always get a bit off me if you want it. I'll bury it." -Subsequently be said ha had planted the tobacco ia a stubble paddock. A day or two after Browa commenced to "inn out," and came down to witness's hub for some. Witness told him that he thought he had plenty. He said it wag too dark to go up to the plant. Witness th=>n gav^ him some. Some time after witness bought a stick of "Juno " tobacno. He lost the stick, however, and went to Meado's, where he saw Brown. He asked the latter for some. Ha ' saii he had not much there, but he usually k«pt i some ia tha buggy sheil near tbe hut. He went '• out aod got a plug. On« side of the plug was a, little damp and the ether a littla dusty. Witness told him it did not look very tf-mpt- i iug to smoke. He said it was all right. ! He generally kept the tobacco either ia j the shed or underneath the ground. j

Cross-examined by Mr Solomon : Witness had once been convicted of stealing othcrproperty from the railway — cigarettes. He ny,d previously been working oa a station in Marlborough. He left there because of tbe good accounts of trapping (ioy/n this way. He had no difficulty up there. Witness di-3 not know if Aleade bad charged him with falsehood at Kokonga. Thera was no agreemaut made as to the share of the swag. On the first night he got a cake of tobacco. He did not like tVe tobacco — it was too hot. Hb got none of the tea. The tea was no good to him, as he boarded with his master. There was no arrangement made as to what be should* get. He agreed to watcb.- because they as<ked him. He did not know what they were going to get. 'Wbea ke told the police he told them lie was innocent. On January 26 h,e saw Lowen at Kokonga. Lowen was guard, and he used to- come up twice a day. He learnt that Brown had the key of the shed, and ha told the others about it.

Archibald M'Nicholl also gave evidence. Detective M'Grath deposed that he and Constable O'Brien examined the floor .of Meade's "hut at Kokonga. A ievf inches undernoath the surface thfcy came across some tobacco. Witness said, "I suppose this is some of the, stolen tobacco ? " Mead* and Brown were present. Meade said *' Tobacco 1" aud seemed surprised. Brown said nothing. When Brown was arrested some days aftsr, he said, "I know nothing about it."

Thomas Meade w»s presented for crossexamination. In reply to Mr -Solomon he said he had been interviewed several times by the police. He knew nothing whatever of the robbery. Brown was au employee of his, and lived in his hut. He knew Simpson and Lowen. Simpsoa was not truthful. He heard Simpson say that witness was present in the. hut when he (Simpson), Brown, and Lowell were.present.with the stolen tea. Distinctly he said that was a lie. So far as he knew Lowen had never been in his hut at all. Witness never said, referring to the tobacco, tbat he ," would not have any of that stuff in his hut."- He heard Simpson say he did. It was a lie. He never heard or had any suspicion that a robbery was being put up. To Mr Sim : Brown had been working for him for several years. He bore as good a character »3 any man in Dunedin. He had implicit trust in him, and during the past couple of years he had handled several hundreds of pounds. On the 2nth January Brown, himself, and his brother started carting iron from the railway station at Kokonga to the Taieri bridge, a distance of six miles, and finished on the 29th. They used to start at 8 o'clock in the morning and knock off about 7 o'clock in the evening at Kokonga. They generally knocked off at 7 at Kokonga, and they had to return to the hut. They" had lo go back by the road, which was a" long way round, and it took them an hour and a-half to get back. When they got back, Brown would get the tea, and witness and his brother would tend the horses. Tea would be over about 9.30 p.m. On the 26th January they followed this course.' They could see Brown all "the evening, except when he went across the road to get the water. He was quite sure that Brown did not leave the hut that night. -Witness's brother was now at Queenstown. To Mr Fraser : To his knowledge Lowen was never in his hut on any occasion. This concluded the case for. the Grown. Mr Solomon and Mr Sim in timated that they would call no evidence

Mr Solomon said he did not think it would be necessary for him to delay the jury, because ife must be plainly evident to them 'that the prisoners' were entitled to an acquittal. In xaott oases of crime thet evidence of an accomplice • might be sufficient to justify the jury to come to- a conclusion, but there were other cases -in law where it was" almost the invariable rule that a man should not be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice without such' porroboration as he would presently indicate. He quoted a decision of his Honor Mr Ju»tice Williams in Regiaa v. Mjles in support of his,contention. The jury, therefore, must be able to say that outside of Simpson's evidence altogether there was evidence which tended to prove the robbery and connected the prisoners with it. Tf they looked at the man Simpson's evidence there was not a tittle of evidence whatever that Lowen was connected with the robbery, or that he had an ounc^ of the tobacco or tea. But the Crown's case was so weak that they asked the jury to convict the accused solely on the evidence of a man who was convicted of theft, when they had a highly-respectable man like Mr Meade, who was a large contractor in the district, but whom the Grown was afraid to call, and who was prepared to swear that this man Simpson was a liar. And what was the motive of this man Simpson in telling such a lie? Conscience made a coward of him. He had already on his own admission been convicted of theft from the Government, a»d having committed th'i3 other crime knew he would be severely dealt with, and to save his own neck he implicated th« others. On the other hand, what motive could Mr Meade have to tell a lie? He told them that Brown was in his employ, and he had trusted him with several hundreds of pounds ; and yet this was the man that --Simpson wished them to believe was a common sneak-thief. He did not think the case justified him in detaining the jury one second longer, but simply added what he had said before — that .there was no other course left open to them but an acquittal. Mr Sim quoted the law as to the evidence of accijtnplices, and added that the iury had no evidence whatever except that of Siwipson. They had he&vd Simpson's story absolutely contradicted by Mr Meade'a 'evidence. Simpson was ilfc.s contradicted oa several other material points by olker witnesses. The only conclusion they could ccme to was that Simpson's evidence could not be relied upon. He was an accomplished thief, although perhaps a penitent one. But, to quote the wv,rds of the Crown prosecutor, Simpson was either speaking the truth or he was a gifted liar. The evidence gi^eu that day fully showed that the latter designation was the ti ue one and that ho was a gifted liar, and that therefore the two accused were entitled to an acauittal.

tan*- nun rm Tirimrirrmnwiipu — ■■wrffJrwwnwnn miiwiiiii ■■ . i mh mwmu ! His Honor then summed up. He said that it was quite competent; for fcUa jury to take the ; uncorroborated evidence of an |iceoi»pl ; c«, bus it ; was hiz duty ft- p#int our. that it «vm"» very datgerous course io take. It was a daag-Tou? thin* to convict a prisoner on the evidence a f ip accomplice tiniest tt tvas corroborated in some material fact. Of course ihay would undarstand tbafc ia «very peaal caao tbere were Wo main poiDts. Thasfs were : First, that the crime was committed ; and, secondly, I/hat the prisoner at the bar committed the crime. It would be an extremely dangerous thing to convict a prisoner if the evidence of aa accomplice was the only corroboration that the crime had been committed. They wanted more than that. His Honor then quoted a decision of aa eminent English judge to show that it was not a ruls of law chat the aiy dence of s.n accomplice nv.ut be coniji'-.ned >;•, ord/'r t: rrtn;i-.;r a cocvictt'js* vaiii, i'lit '?• v« s ?be s !uty ot' the juu'ge >,o toil tbe jury tSsa*. '-r was dangsroui ,to ccui'ict cors§r>Ta»'firy «videaco. What fcjje jury therefore uad '-c do fas fco see if there wan any corroborative evidence or. * material poiot which would go to connect tbe ;>risoupr with the crime. Hfi3 Honor tlien went through the evidence in detail, and

At 5 45 the jury retired, and '.^turned in cKreequarcera of an hour with a veHict of " hot The pi-tjoaers were thea discharged. ""

Auckland, May 31. As the Supreme Court John Reid was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for horse-stealing.

Welmnoton, May 31. At the criminal session next week 24 esses are set dosvii against 15 accused. Half She cases are against thxea misouets.

Ckristchhach, May 31. Sophie Minifie pleaded guilty to breikitg and entering, and an order was made that her husband enter into recognisances that she would come up for s&ntence when called upon. John M'Kengue wa» convicted of assaulting H. G. £en - yman at AsMmrlon, and fined £30. Annie Mahcu, found guilty of robbing a drunken man, w?a ordered to oomq up for sentence when called upon. Alexander Finiiy ami Robert. Finlay, cotivioted of stealing six sacks of wheat, were fach sentenced to one month's im risonment. Robert M'Bvoy, an old offender, pleaded guiity to forging and uttering six chpques for small sums, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.