SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2363, 8 June 1899, Page 26

SUPREME COURT. CRIMINAL SESSIONS.

Wednesday, Mat 31. (Before Mr Justice Williams and a Common

His Honor took his seat on the bench at halfpast 10 a.m.

ALLEGED STEALING.

Thomas Ritchie was charged with, on the 4th April, at Bunedin, stealing from the dwelling house of Amelia Bilson, one watch, one chain, and one pendant, the property of Joseph James. A second count charged the accused with the larceny of the goods, and the third charged him with receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen. Mr A. 0. Hanlon appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor said the facts of this case were these : The accused was rider-out for Mrs Bilson, who was a fishmonger in Dunedin and kept boarders. Prosecutor lived on the premises, and on the evening of Monday, April 3, he changed his clothes in his room. His watch, chain, and pendant were in the pocket of his vest. Next morning the watch, chain, and pendant were missing. It was clear, therefore, the articles had been taken away between 8.30 on the Monday night, and the next morning. The matter was reported to the police, who succeeded in regaining the watch and ohain, but not tho locket. Jt would be proved that, on April 5, accused pledged the watch, chain, and pendant at the Union Pawn Office for 4s, and subsequently sold the ticket for Is to George Harris, a secondhand dealer. Then, about April 8, apcused went to Air Moller's shop in the Octagon and asked the value of a locket which ho produced. Air Moller said it was worth 3s. Ho bought the article for that sum, and had since melted it. Accused's story, when arrested by Constable Cooney, was that he bought tho watch and chain in Galvin's bar for 10s, and that he had pawned his tools to get the money. Evidence was given for the prosecution by Joseph James, F. J. Townseud, George Latimer, George Harris, O. H. Moller, and Constable Cooney.

Mr Hanlon, in opening the defence, said that tho case was an exceedingly simple one, and the jury would have no difficulty at arriving at a just conclusion. As they had heard during the progress of the case for the Orown, the contention of the accused was that he bought the watch from a man in Galvin's bar. Of course, as his learned friend had put it, if property, proved lo be stolen, was found shortly after it bad been stolen in the possession of some person, the law threw* on that person the onus of proving how he came by that property, and if not able to give a satisfactory explanation the assumption was that lie stole it. When the jury had heard the evidence for the defence, and fitted tliat in with the evidance for the prosecution, he thought they would have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the explanation was quite reasonable. The evidence for the defence would_ be that accused bought the watch and chain and other things from a man in Galvin's bar. When arrested lie had told the constable that he had the watch for some days before pawning it, but when a man was muddled with drinking he could not perhaps remember to a day or so when any particular event took place. Accused said either Air Galvin or the girl was in the ljar, and he (learned counsel) was going to call the barmaid and ask her what site knew about it. The constable had already aoked "Sir Gdlvin, but he remembered nothing of the matter. He (counsel), however, "would call Mr and Mrs

Robertson, at whose place in Stuart sfcrtitefl tho transaction was completed, and who were present when the 10s was paid. over for tha watch by accused to a man. In fact, 2s of the sum was lent by Mr Robertson, who kept the watch in his possession for a. couple of days until accused came back and paid the 2g and took the watoh away- Accused thought he had got a bargain in the articles, and at once pawned his tools to secure it,- -and then at once pawned the watch in order to get a drink. That was foolishness; but "the jury must not assume that because" accused was foolish and did stupid things of that character he was a thief too.

Tnomas Ritchie, the accused, said he was a wood-carver by occupation. - On the afternoon or evening of the 4th April he was ia the bar of Galvin's Empire Hotel. A man had the watch and chain produced in his possession, and was offering it for sale for 10s. Witness said he would buy it. The owner of the watch, another man, and witness then left the hotel, and proceeded to the Auld Scotland Hotel in Stuart street, where they each had a drink. They afterwards went to witness's shop, and <after being there for a time witness asked the two men to go back to the Auld Scotland Hotel, and wait there till he joined them. When they .had left he packed up his tools and went out to pawn them.' The Ballarat Office was closed, bo he went to" Isaac's pawn office in the Arcade. He told Mr Latimer, the manager, that he wanted; 10s on his tools, as he desired to buy a watch with the money. After some hesitation on Mr Latimer's part he gave witness the money, and" witness went back to the Auld Scotland!" Hotel and paid the owner of the watch 10s for it. He borrowed 2s from Mr Robertson-, tho owner of a restaurant in the neighbourhood, giring him the watch to -hofd until the 2s was. paid back. . Witness and the two men then had another drink in the hotel. He swore positively that he bought the watch from the man. Afterwards he got the watoh from Mr Robertson. Ho took it to Isaac's pawn office, where Mr Latimer told him he had paid too much for it. Ho subsequently pawned it for 3s, while the locket he sold for Is, and later on he disposed of the pawn ticket for Is.

By the Crown Prosecutors The man who owned the watch had been drinking with witnes3 and others. Witness had never seen tho man since.

Ellen Collins, barmaid at Galvin's Hotel, remembered the circiimstance of a man offering a watch for sale in the bar. It was about two months ago. She believed the accused was in the bar at the time. She thought the ■watch was offered to him.

Thomas Robertson, restaurant keeper, and Mary Jane Robertson also gave evidence corroborative of the accused's story.

Mr Hanlon addressed the jury, the Crown. Prosecutor followed, and his Honor summed U P- _ . .

The Jury retired at 1.12 and returned, at 1.20 with a verdict of "Not guilty." The prisoner was then discharged. BREAKING AND ENTERING.

Alexander Blue was charged with having, by night, on the 14-th of April, broken and entered the dwelling house of Lester Albert Reid and Arthur Scherp, in George street, with intent to commit a crime. A second count charged the accused with breaking and entering the warehouse of M'Farlane and Peden, and entering it with intent to commit a crime.

Mr Barclay appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty, and Mr Fraser conducted the prosecution.

The Orown Prosecutor, in opening the case for the Orown, said that Messrs Reid and Scherp lived on the premises used as M'Farlane and Peden's store at the corner of Hanover ami George streets, and were practically in the position of lodgers. If the jury concluded that accused broke into- the place with the intention of stealing the goods of Reid and Scherp, they would find him guilty of the charge of burglary on the first count. If, howover, they decided that he broke into the place intending to steal the goods of M'Farlane and Peden, they would find him guilty on the second count, of breaking into the warehouse. The evidence would show that on the night in question Reid and Scherp heard a cutting noise at the cellar-door, and people talking. The young men got up. cheesed quietly, and went out of the front of the building, and round to the back across a vacant section. Their intention was to catch the men in the cellar, but that was prevented by an unfortunate- accident. When they gofc to the Hanover street door they dropped the bar which fastened it, 'but the bar caught, and finding resistance, and thinking someone was holding it, they called out, " Let go." This alarmed the people who wore -breaking into the place, and Reid' and Schorp saw the accused running across a vacant section from the direction of the back gate. The accused ran towards Filleul street, along Hanover street. Scherp and Reid ran after him, calling "Police," and Reid called upon him to stop. When nearing Scotland street Reid shouted to him that it was all up, and that if he did not stop Scherp would strike him. Accused then turned round and threatened Reid with a knife. However, Reid was not to be daunted, and seized him first by the wrist and then by the throat. After a struggle Reid and Scherp look the knife from Blue, got him down, and bound his hands behind his back. Accused denied having been on the place, but said there were two to one, that they had got the bbst of him, and they had better let him go, as it would do them no good. The young men took the accused to George street, and on the way he said first that he had had about 20 drinks that day, and meant no harm by being on the promises, and afterwards he said he had been going home quietly, that they had jumped out from, a dark spot and assaulted him, and that he would have them up for assault on the following day. At the time he was asking to be let go he threatened to prosecute them for assault. They met Constable Chisholm at the corner of St. Andrew - street and George street, and gave the accused into custody. That was the history of a capture which the learned Crown Prosecutor thought he was justified in characterising as courageous. These young men went bare-handea, not knowing what weapons the others might have, and he thought they deserved credit for showing so much pluck. Mr Barclay at this stage asked that all witnesses" should be directed to leave the court, in case the young men referred to should get' too vain.

Mr Fraser said he thought what he had said was fully justified. As it was,. Blue was armed with a knife, which he threatened to use. That knife played a very important part in the case. The point of the blade was broken, and it occured to the officials that it might have been broken in cutting the door. Subsequently an officer searched amongst the cuttings and dust at the top of the stairs at M'Farlane and Peden's place, and there found a small piece of steel which exactly fitted into the end of the knife. That, it Peemed to him, was proof beyond question that whoever the accomplice might have been, the accused was the man who had been cutting into the door. That was mont valuable! testimony. The offence v/afa a. crave one, that of two men In q

determined manner breaking into a building, learned Prosecutor had no doubt the 'Jury would listen, with great care and attention to the evidence, and he submitted with some confidence that, in view of the way in ..which tho accused had been caught, of the fact that when caught the accused drew a knife, that that knife was found to have its ■noiat broken, and that the broken part was found in the cuttings at the door of the premises which had been broken into. There could be practically no difficulty in dealing with the case. Evidence in support of the opening statement was given by Isaac M'Farlane, Lester Albert Reid, Arthur Scherf, and Constable Chisholm.

Mr Barc?ay, fc opening* for the defence, said the jury must have wondared why he had cross-examined co little, and made so little effort; to impugn the character of th© evidence for the Crown. The reason wac tha^ the defence did not require tc impugn any of these facts. The simple facts wera thaf. on the nigh-i when the offenca wae conimilled, the accused and another man were somewhat under the influence of liquor, that the offence of breaking intc and entering the house was -committed by the man who was not arrested. and that the only part the accused took in connection with it wao that he had tried to induce his companion to dseist. There was no word of the defence which was not entirely consistent with all the facts that had been proved by the Crown. There was nothing improbable or inconsistent abou f - it, and the only evidence he could give cf the real facts was the prisoner's own, and the prisoner obstinately declined to give up to anyone the name of the man who was the real offender.

The Prisoner, who gave evidence, said that all he had done was to try to get the man away who was breaking into the place. He 2iad run away because he heard someone calling "Police." As they went away his companions gave accused his knife.

To the Crown Prosecutor : Witness declined to give the name of the man he was with. He did not go into th© building, but into the yard. He never attempted to use the knife at all.

Mr Barclay addressed the jury, on behalf of the accused, and submitted that the evi<lenoe given by the prisoner was in no way ■' nconsistent with every fact proved by the Orown. That being so, could they say they 'lad no doubt as to the guilt of the accused? Could the jury be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused? If there was reasonable doubt- as to his guilty then the jury should acquit the prisoner.

Mr Fraser, in reply, "expressed the opinion ■that to suggest that the jury should credit -iie statement of the accused was putting too heavy a strain upon the credulity of any jury. The only matter for regret was that they had not the accused and his companion before them, but that was not tho fault of the Crown. He thought the case presented no difficulty to the jury.

The Jury retired at 4.17, and returned at 4.30 with a verdict of " Guilty."

The Prisoner, being called on, said his age was 19.

His Honor: What is known about him, Mr Fraser?

The Crown Prosecutor said the prisoner was 21 years of age, not 19 years. He was born in the colony, and his character was bad. He was an associate of thieves and prostitutes, and did no work. He was committed to the Industrial School in 1889. He was charged at Timaru in 1897 with breaking and entering, and was acquitted. On a charge of theft in Dunedin, in 1893, he was dismissed. Shortly afterwards he was tried again, and was Eentenc9d to 14 days' hard labour. In December. "593, ho was convicted of drunkenness, and l ater on received a sentence of three months for vagrancy.

His Honor: The offence is a serious one, and the record of the m-isoner is bad. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned in the common gaol at Dunedin for a term of four years and kept to hard labour.