A SERIES OF THEFTS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2356, 20 April 1899, Page 9

A SERIES OF THEFTS.

•"At the City Police Court on the 11th insfc., fcefore Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., Mary Banwell , and Charles Banwell were charged with having, on November 1 last, at Dunedin, stolen two rolls of cloth, valued at £7 ss, the property of Louis Faigan. — Mr Hanlon appeared for accused. — Detective M'Grath. stated that the information was laid under section 255 of the Code, and the facts were that complainant, Louis Faigan, was a tailor carrying on business in George street. On the Ist November last, between 8 and 11 o'clock a.m., a roll of cloth, 14£ yds long, was stolen from the shop, and "about the same date a piece of tweed, ■ 6Jyds long. The matter of the latter theft was j never reported to the police. • The two accused j .were husband and wife, and resided, with their nine children, in a four-roomed house in Grange street, and they were customers of Mr Paigan's. • They visited the shop pretty fre- \ quently on business, and a few days after the ! offence was committed the female accused was | at the shop, and Mr Faigan told her of the i -theft. He gave her a pattern of the missing tweed, and asked her to keep a lookout for it, which she promised to do. On the 18th ; inst. a plain-clothes constable and the speaker searched the house of the accused, and found j 4he roll of tweed, 11yds long, and two ladies', made up from the material, which j Vrald account for, the 14yds. The female i accused was present when they found this, «-.nd ] eaid she got it at Mr Lories; but when they I said it belonged to Mr Faigan, the tailor, she j eaid, yes, 'she took it from there. They, also found a large quantity of miscellaneous property which had been stolen from different persons during the last seven or eight months. The female accused, when she admitted haying stolen the goods, said her husband knew i nothing about it. They arrested her, and the j day following arrested the male accused, and j told him of this charge and several others. I He said he knew nothing about the stolen j property. It was incredible that the husband j <lid not know that these > goods were dis- j honestly come by. His own bedroom was ; more like a fancy glass and china shop than a ! bedroom. The detective drew attention to the j -fact that by section 263 of the Code, the male j accused, though not achially taking part in the theft, might be committed for trial, and a. count for" receiving put in the indictment. — Evidence was given by Aaron Faigan, Rose Faigan, George Rankin, and Plain-clothes Constable Cooney. — Mr Hanlon admitted that a prima facie case had been made out against j tho female accused, and she would reserve her , 'defence. A<j fac as flic other accused was con- > «erncd, there was not a tittle of evidence j .against him. There was nothing to connect i him with the charge. There was the admis- j sion by the woman that she took the material from Mr Faigan' s, and there was no suggestion that the husband took part in the theft 'at all. The things were not in the actual or 'constructive possession of the male accused. Counsel considered the .idea of the Crown -prosecutor putting a count into the indictment for receiving as a peculiar method of procedure, whatever the police might think. It 'could not be contended that the male accused aided in the stealing or disposing of these fgoods, or that he was exclusively or generally -with the- other thief in possession of the articles. The police had proved that the pro.perty' was in the actual possession of the ■ woman. — His Worship did not see how the .man could have been ignoraat that the things , were stolen, and committed both for trial The two accused were then charged with having on the 18th July last, stolen a quantity of , clothing, of the total value of 255, the property of Harry Ball. — Detective M'Grath mentioned, that this offence became indictable inasmuch as the information had not been laid within "six months. — From the evidence given by Minnie Ball and Plain-clothes Constable Cooney, it appeared that the articles were taken when in a dirty condition from the 'premises of Mr Ball, and were afterwards found by tho police in accused's house. — His "Worship decided to dismiss the case as against tho male accused, and committed the woman for trial. Mary Banwell was then charged .with having, on the 15th July last, stolen a bed quilt, valued at 10s, the property of Thomas .Egley. — Emma Constance Eglcy deposed that she missed the quilt from a tub in her back yard in Grange street. — Constable Cooney gave evidence as to finding the quilt in the Souse of accused, after which she was committed for trial. Mary and Charles Banwell ■were charged with having, on the .3rd December, stolen a go-cart, valued at £2 7s 6d, the property of Frank Arthur Hooper.—^Complainant, in his evidence, mentioned that on the date in question a go-cart was missed from the front of his premises in the Octagon. The number of the cart was 2255 (the number on the cart produced), and this also bore the name plate of witness. — Evidence was also given by Herbert Hunt, assistant at complainant's warehouse, and by Constable Cooney, tho latter deposing to findiug the cart in the accused's house. — Both accused wore committed for trial. The same accused were , further charged with stealing, about tho Ist ■'inst., a number of articles valued at £4, the '.property oft John Thomson Carter. — Evidence •was given- by James Patton, salesman with Mr -Carter," complainant, and Constable Cooney, ' ihe latter • stating that when tho things were ' found in accused's house 'Mrs - Banwell said '.that she got the butter-dish and teapot as a ■ wedding present years ago. Later on she said it was no use denying that she had taken tho -things.— Committed foi trial.— The next charge preferred against the two accused was of having, on the 27th November, stolen a go-cart, i "valued at 10s, the property of Reuben Isaacs. The woman pleaded guilty and the man not . guilty. — Evidence was given by complainant and Constable Cooney, tho latter mentioning that the cart was found in the house with the other one. — Mr Hanlon submitted that there was no case against the man at all. There ■was no evidence before his Worship that these 'things were in his possession. The only evidence was that they were in the house in which ,lie lived. It did not follow because they were there that they were his. The police had to prove that he had seen the goods. — Mr Graham : "Ho could not help seeing them. — Mr Hanlon -«aid there was no evidence before his Worship .of -that. It must be proved conclusively that they were in the possession of accused, and that ho had received them, knowing them to be stolen, and there was no evidence of that. Unless his Worship was satisfied on this point he < could not convict. — Detective M'Grath mentioned that it was understood that a charge of receiving stolen property, against the male accused, was beiug taken with the other. — Mr "Hanlon then called Mary Banwell, the accused, •who said that her husband asked her where ehe got the go-cart, and she replied that she bought it from a lady for the little boy— the invalid boy*— to take him to school in. She never told her husband she had stolen either of the go-carts. — The male accused deposed that several times he told his wife not to be buying that rubbish. . -He nevei received any of the shift into his possession, and had no know- • ledge that the goods were stolen. — His Worship said if it had been an isolated case he would have had no hesitation in giving the male accused the benefit of the doubt, but he could not separate it from the surrounding circumstances. The whole of the goods were brought there, and he could not acquit the male accused of 'having a guilty knowledge as to how they were acquired. He would be convicted of guilty knowledge, and acquitted on the other charge. £he female accused would silsc be convicted. — 'Before «Mit«acuy* hia Worship decided >o hear

the other charges, and the next taken was with having, on the 26th November, stolen three rolls of print valued at £1 8s 4d, the property of James Young. — The female accused pleaded guilty, and the male accused not guilty. The male accused was further charged with receiving the print knowing it to be stolen. — Detective M'Grath said he would withdraw the charges against the man of stealing. — Evidence was given by complainant, a drapei in Frederick street, and Constable Cooney. — His Worship said that m this case he was inclined to give the male accused the benefit of the doubt and acquit him. The goods were of such a nature as would lead him to believe that they were bought for the bona fide good of the establishment. — Detective M'Grath said that in view of this decision he would withdraw the remaining charges of theft and receiving agamst the male accused. — Mary Banwell was charged with the theft, on the 12th October, of clothing to the value of 255, the property of Margaret Kelly. — Accused pleaded guilty, and the detective having mentioned that the clothes were stolen from a back yard and found in the house, accused was convicted, and further charged with having, on the Bth April, stolen three shirts valued at 18s 6d, the property of James Arthur and another. — Accused having pleaded guilty, his Worship said he would treat the four convictions against the female prieoner as one. It seemed to him that a systematic . series of thefts had been carried on by her, and she would • be sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. As ho had found the husband guilty of receiving, he wonld sentence him to a similar term in' the case in which ho -had been found guilty. — On the application of Mr Hanlon bail was allowed, as far as the male accused was concerned in relation to the committals for trial himself in £50, and two sureties of £25 each, or' one of £50.