OTHER CONSTABLES BEFORE THE COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2666, 19 April 1905, Page 29

OTHER CONSTABLES BEFORE THE COURT.

At the conclusion of the ordinary business of the City Police Court on Friday morning the charges against members of the Police Force were brought before Air C C. Graham, S.M.

THE CHARGES AGAIXST OSBORNE. Alfred Henry Osborne was chare-eel with, afe Dun-edin, on or about the month of December, 1901, stealing seven silk handkerchiefs value £1 6s 3d, the property 01 Messrs Kilroy and Sutherland, of Princes, street, Dunedin.

Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared to conduct the prosecution.

Mr S. Solomon, who appeared for the accused, asked if the Crown wished the case to be dealt with summarily or by indictment.

Mr Fraser said he apprehended that in none of the cases would the court be disposed to treat the cases summarily. In reply to his Worship, Mr Solomon said he did not object to the case being dealt with by indictment.

His Worship said he would not deal with the case summarily, but by indictment. All witnesses were ordered to leave the court.

Mr Fraser said that the facts were these: At the beginning of last December Messrs Kilroy and Sutherland missed from 15 to 20 silk handkerchiefs from their premises. Inquiries were made among the employees, and e-very effort was made to trace the articles, but without success. On the 15th of March the detectives at Dunedin had occasion to search the dwelling 1 house of the accused, and among a large quantity of new goods in his possesion they found seven new silk handkerchiefs. When the accused was asked to give an explanation as to how he became possessed of the handkerchiefs, he replied, " Moses gave them to me." The handkerchiefs were identified by a salesman in tho shop as being practically the handkerchiefs that were missed. They were of two qualities. Three of them were of a higher quality than the other four. The handkerchiefs had the private mark of the firm upon them. It would be proved that at no time were more than three of the handkerchiefs sold to any one buyer, and the fact that seven of them had been found in the possession of the accused, together with the explanation he gave, pointed conclusively to his guilt.

Samuel Lawn, draper's assistant, employed by Kilroy and Sutherland, said towards the end of December he missed a number of silk handkerchiefs. Between 10 and 20 were missed. These were kept behind the counter in cardboard boxes. There were three in the box, and the three were missing. The three prodced were the" handkerchifs. There was a mark on one of them — a private mark corresponding with the mark on the bottom of the box produced. As to the four remaining handkerchiefs produced, they^ were the property of Kilroy and Sutherland. These bore a private mark and a price mark in plain figures. Witness produced the box that had contained the handkerchiefs, and it bore a mark corresponding to that on the handkerchiefs. Did not know accused by sight. Since the beginning of December witness had not sold more than three handkerchiefs to any one man. Detective Cooney said that he eearched. the house of accused on the 15th tilt., and amongst other property found the seven silk pocket handkerchiefs produced. Accused and his wife were present when the search was made. Detective Herbert, who was with witness, asked accused if he could explain where he °ot the silk handkerchiefs. Accused replied, "I got them from Constable Moses some time ago.'' To Mr Solomon: The Chief Detective took a nore of the conversation, and reP °Detective Herbert stated that on the 15th of March, with Detective Cooney, at about 3 pm. he searched accused's house in the pre&ence of accused and his wife, and took possession of a quantity of new .goods ot various descriptions, amongst which weie the handkerchiefs produced. Accused said in answer to a question, " I got these from Moses, or Moses gave them to me To Mr Solomon : The value of the whole of the <*oods found in accused's possession "ThiffomplLd" the case for the Crown and Mi Solomon intimated that accused reserved his defeace. . , , Osborne was then cautioned in the usual way and committed for trial. Mr Solomon saymg the question ot bail could stand over in the meantime. O«borne was tk-n further charged that within the past 12 months he did break and enter the shop of James Wallace m Princes street, and steal therefrom five packets ot envelopes and two packet 9 of notepaper, •valued at 3s 9d. Mr Solomon drew attention to the tact that the wording of the information was exceeding^ vague. Accused was charged with breaking and entering this shop within the past 12 months He put it to the Crown that they had a right to know when the offence took placeMr Fraser said the evidence would fix the time as clearly as it could be fixed. Practically the only person who could fax the exact time was the accused nimsell.

Mr Solomon: That is a very improper statement to make. You are assuming his "•uilt. Tlutt 13 not the way to put the matter now. The accused is on his trial, and is not here for punishment. Mr Fraser replied that, assuming the case for the prosecution was correct, accused vvas guilty. The circumstances were that Mr Wallace was a stationer carrying on business in Princes street. The lock of the door of tho shop was not a spring one ; it was a door thst locked with a key. It would be proved by Mr Wallace and his -assistant that the premises were always locked up at night, and were always found locked in the morning. When the detectives searched accused's house on the 15th of last month they found the paper and envelopes in question. When asked to account for th* poses<=ioii of thorn, accused said that he got chem from a shop in Princes street, which he found open one night a good while ago. The shop, he added, was between Ford's and the Dresden, and that was exactly where Mr Wallace's shop was situated. Accused further said that he shut the door, but did not report finding it open His admission of guilt was clear as far as the taking of the articles was concerned. He said he found the door open, and admitted that he was inside. He therefore committed a crime by taking the

things. Counsel would prove that ho could not have found the door open, for it was kept locked. Therefore tho only oxp'analion of how he got into the shop was that he must have used a skeleton key, or el=c a key that would open and reloek the door. James Wallace, printer and stationer, said his shop was between Ford and Co 's and the Dresden. Witness did not res ids? in the premises. The front door locked with an ordinary bolt lock, not with a spring lock. There were two keys to this lock, and witness and hfs assistant, W. J. Williamson, had possession of these keys. The practice was that the last to leave the premises locked up ; Mr Williamson was always tho one to open. During tho last two "years witness had never been last on the premises, and omitted to lock the door. Had paper of the class produced in stock. He took ihe marks 1-3 to be hi& assistant's marking. Witness stocked such paper and envelopes in considerable quantity. Could not say whether he had missed any paper similar to that produced dm ing tho past two years. It was not possible to say. To Mr Solomon • The paper was manufactured id England. Witness was a retailer, and sold the paper in packets similar to those produced very commonly. Would expect to find this brand of paper stocked in other stationer's shops in Dunedin On the depositions being read over witness added that he had missed other paper.

Mr Solomon objected to the admissibility of the evidence, as not being relevant to the present chai-ge. The only object in bringing it in was to prejudice accused. His Worship did not think the evidence could go down. William Williamson, employed by Mr Wallace for about four years, said he had a key of the front door, and his duty in respect to locking up was that if he was last to leave he locked the door, and he opened it every morning. The lock was not a spring lock, but locked with a key. Had never failed to look the door during the last two years that he could remember. Recollected one occasion, about six months ago, the door seemed as if it had been tampered with, but witness had not a great deal of trouble in opening It. Eventually the key opened it Had never, during the last two years, found the door unlocked on coming to the place in the morning. 1-3 mark on the paper looked like witness's figures. They had the same sort of paper as that produced in stock, but witness could not say the paper produced came from Mr Wallace's shop. Detective Herbert stated that on March 15 he took possession of the paper and envelopes produced at accused's house. Accused said, in answer to a question, "I got them one night out of a shop in Princes street, between Ford's and the Dresden. I found the door open and shut it. It is a long time ago. I did not report it."

Detective Cooney, who had accompanied Detective Herbert in his visit to the house oT accused, said he had heard Detective Herbert's evidence, and agreed with it. This concluded the case for the Crown, and accused, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial.

Osborne was still further charged with having, within the past 12 months, stolen eight cakes of Colgate's soap, 23 sticks of tobacco, five packets of cigarette papers, two pipes, a hair comb, a hair brush, a clothes brush, a memo, book, a crocodile leather cigar case, two pairs of children's shoes, a pair of children's boot, the property of some person or persons unknown. Mr Fraser said that the evidence would show that when the dwelling house of

accused was searched there was a somewhat varied assortment of new goods found there. When asked to account for therri--hc endeavoured to do so by saying, with respect to the soap, that he gave a boy, whom he met at the corner of the Arcade. 4s 6d for it. On the face of it, that was not a reasonable explanation, and in the case of a police constable it was really an impossible ~ explanation. In respect to the tobacco accused was particularly frank. He accounted for having such a large quantity in his possession by saying that he participated in the distribution of some stolen property taken from Curtis's shop in Rath-ay street in the small hours of the

morning-. Mr Solomon: If that is so. it is a strange thins? you should charge him with stealing goods from some person or persons unknown.

Mr Fraser : I simply said that accused stood at the door of th« shop when the stolen property was distributed. In respect to the other articles, tho brushes, the comb. and the cig-ar case, he said that he got them fiom Reddington. His Woi-ship : This is the second time that the name has been mentioned. Who is Reddington? Mr Fraser: Thero are two of them. One

is a night-watchman in the city, and the other is a porter at the Grand Hotel. Counsel, continuing, said accused accounted for ihe presence of the boots by saying

they were given to him by .Consla,ble

Moses. That and the identification of certain articles would be the ca^e for the prosecution. Detective Herbert deposed that on March 15, at 3 p.m., he visited accused's houso in company with Detective Cooney, and made a search in the presence of accused and his wife. He (witness) took possession of all the goods mentioned in the information, with other goods. In answer to questions as to how he got possession of all these things, he said: "I got the soap from a boy at Carey's, at the corner of the Arcade, eight or 10 months ago, and paid him 4s 6d for it. Reddington gave me the cigar case. The two pair of boots and the shoes I got from Mooes several months ago. The two brushes and comb from Reddington about six months ago. I got the 23 sticks of tobacco, three packets cigarette tobacco, and two wood pipes from Quill and Reddington — some from each. It was one night about 2 or 3 a.m. They got it from Ben Curtis's shop. His door was open. It wa« near his door he gave me them. They both said they got them out of Curtis's." Detecti\e Cooney corroborated the evidence of the last witness, mentioning that accused u^ed the name of Harry Roddington in connection with brushes and comb, and «tating that he (accused) said ho got the tobacco, etc., from Quill and Reddington in Curtis's open doorway. To Mr Solomon : Accused was qucs-

, tkmec]. He knew the iudges said that ' should not be done in the ca-e of a eu«1 pected person. He had no search warrant when he went to accused'^ house. Accused * made no obi'ection to the place being

marched.

If ho had another course would

have been taken. ' ! Benjamin Curtis, tobacconist, said that

on the night of June 28, 1904, he locked up his shop and left it secure. Witness came to the shop next morning about 9.30, and in consequence of something ho was told, ho examined his stock. He found there was missing tobacco, £1 15s in money, and 300 or 400 cigar*. He stocked all the brands of tobacco produced. The Havelock tobacco was damp when ho bought it. and ,-howcd signs of mildew. The tobacco produced had also boon wet ?nd mildewed. Witness stocked pip^s and cigarei le papers similar to those produced. To Mr Solomon : Witness would not say ho missed any goods of the classes produced. The goods produced were «=uch - were stocked by almost all tobacconists. Lewis Curtu*, son of last witness, said heopened the premises on the morning of .Tuao 29, about 8.30. There were- two locks to the door, and one was undone. He found when a customer ram© in that the till was empty. Hi 5 father had arrived when he discovered thi^.

Charles Wilkins. salesman for Beatti. .... Co.. Mutual Store. Maclaggan street, said hia firm .stocked boots. The boots produced had all been the firm's property at one time-. The firm's private mark was on them. He did not know accused. Ho knew Constable Mos-cs. He had been in the shop two or three times, but had never made purchases there to witness's knowledge.

To Mr Solomon: Witness did not knn whether the boots had been bought from their nlace or not.

Mr Solomon said that in other cases which had been before tho court that morning, had it not been for the fact that these C2s?s were cases that had created a great deal of interest, and about which the court felt an added sense of responsibility, he should have contended that in one or both of the cases there was no c.ise to send before a jury. But he had Mi that under the circumstances it would be wasting the time of the court for him to urge this request, since the r< might not have felt -justified in accepting the responsibility of dismissing th© charge, and consequently he had reserved his C*€fence. But in tho present case he felt lw would nol bo doing his uuty if he refrained from asking the court to dismiss the information. There was absolutely no evidence whatever to justify the court in sending the man for trial. So far as all the articles with the exception of the tobacco, were concerned, if the ease went before the judge his Honor would be compelled to say " There i«s not a scintilla of evidence ; absolutely no evidence whatever."' And he (Mr Solomon) challenged his learned friend to controvert tha£ statement. The only evidence of any sort against the constable with regard to everything except the tobacco was that the constable had the things in his possession. Asked where he got the soap, O&born© said that he got it from Carey's shop, and there was no evidence that tho soap had been stolen from anyone. Then, again, because the man had a comb and a brush in his possession the court was asked to commit accused for trial. No one said these things ha,d been stolen. He (counsel) would deal with the ether articles alter his worship had given hj= decision with regard to tho things he (Mr So'omon) had mentioned. His Worship said it was his intention to deal w ich the information as a whole.

Mr Solomon said in that case there was, with regard to tho tobacco. . very little difference in the position. Accused was charged w ith having stolen the tobacco, an J there was no evidence that it had beeu stoVn. Neither father nor son (the Messrs Curtis) had attempted to say that any tobacco had been taken out of the pla*°e The son said £4 16s had been taken, and the father said he had never missed aly goods of the kind before the court. As far as the admission of accused was concerned as an admission it totally negatived any theft whatever.

His Worship =aid they had evidence that accused had shared in plunder just stolen from Mr Curtis's shop, and his Worship regarded that as part of the theft. He thought there could be no doubt the tobacco was stolen from Mr Curtis's shop, and there was a considerable amount of suspicion with regard to the other articles. He must rule against Mr Solomon's contention. Mr Solomon: Very well: accrued will reserve his defence. I ask for bail.

H's Worship then committed accused for trial.

Mi- Fraw then said that he was instructed to oppose bail. Mr Solomon said thai if bail were not allowed it would mean the introduction of an extremely dangerous practice. Accusc-rl was not a policeman now. but an ordinary TJoraon charged with a serious offence. Mr Fraser said that according to his instruction* there was a probability of iustice being defeated if the man were- admitted to bail.

After further argument his Worship =;nid f-hatjic would do the same as he did in M'Donald's case, and grant bail to acctised in his own recognisance of £400 and two sureties of £200 each.

Mr Fraser

On each charge?

Hi* Worship: Xo, only on one charge.; I will aceppt hi* own recognisances on the other two charges. Another charge against accused of bre-'<-"ing and entering the premises of Kilroy aaJ Sutherland and stealinor the- seven silk lia/rlkerchiefs referred to in the first case wa-j withdrawn.

CHARGES AGAIXST QUILL

Edward Quill was charged with having on or about March 15 stolen: 1 rug, 2 rolls tweed, 1 hair-clipping machine, 19 boot laces, 10 sticks tobacco, 3 pipes, 1 umbrella-cover, 1 pair men's gloves, 3 boxes shaving soap, X silver-mounted purse. 1 sha\ ing brush, 1 amber cigar-holder, I amber cigarette-holder, 1 foot rule. 1 pocket knife, 2 files. 23 bits, 6 packets envelopes, and 1 bottlo perfume, the pro : perty of ?ome person or poisons unknown, and valued at £10. „

Mr Fra*er appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Hanlon for accused.

Mr Fiascr said that the articles mentioned were all new and valuable goodf, which were found in accused's hou«*e when it, was searched. When asked not only by tho detecthes but by hi=i superior officer to account for tho possession of so large it roller hon of new goods Quill replied " i will not offt r any explanation now." The rofu.-al on the pare of accused to account for the possession of the things to his superior officer was counsel submitted, a suspicious circumstance, and evidence against the man. Mr Hanlon : The law is directly contrary to that.

Mr Fraser replied that he suggested the refusal to account for the possession of the things was an admission of guilt on the part of. accused. It was his duty to the

service to explain if ho could. When Quill was asked how he came in possession of th© two pieces of tweed he had said h° bought them from a hawker at his own door one d-iy. He did not know him, and woula not know him a^ain. Could tne court imaoi'io a con-Üble, wlv» was practically thar^d with th'" theft cf %aluab 1 o cloth, «iyin£T ho had bovht i1"i 1 " from a hawker whom he did not know, and would noi; know again. Ihe tv.acd was identified as having been pact of tho u.J.C stock. Mr ('i-e^n^lado, shop a^iutc-nfc el the D.I.C -,*oulcl tell the court that tho Lhick diagonal

tweed was part <■ la<.t.

Mr Hanlon: I' w. ,i.,.\ r 1- ire prcpertv of the D.I.U. \o\\ nm-s say ?o in tha information. Your information 1= a direct untruth. The sworn information says ib is the property oE a p< ron or persons unknown.

Mr Frpser •■•aid tho court w?" not eonc mcd whether the goods were The projjeity of any particular person. His Worship Lad to find out whether a p.'ima fe>cie case was made out. The balance of this very tweed would be produced and sworn to. There vus also a new rug which would bo sworn to as having been stolen. Then there were thro-" -valuable pipes (two worth about 8s each, aud the other worth about io<o. Two of them ha<l been sniok"cd, apparently once or twice. The pipes were of the same class as was stocked by Ahlfeldi Brothers, and the pipe worth 2.05. which was found in the possession of accused, would? be sworn to as bavin 2: been stolen. A very large majority of tho remaining articles were exactly similar to the class of goods kept be Ahlfuld Brothers. Detective Herbert said that on March 15, about 7.30, he, with Detective Cooney, met accused at the Police Station on his return from Balclutha. Witness told him they w anted to search his house for property alleged to have been stolen, and that they had searched Osborne s house, and had taken possession of a quantity of tobacco that Osborne^ said had been given him by him (Quill) and Reddington. He replied '" He's a liar." Witness and Detective Cooney went to Quill's house in Grange street, searched and took possession of all the goods mentioned in the information. Witness asked accused how he came in possession of the two pieces of cloth produced, and he said "I bought it of a hawker one day at, the door." He said he did not know who the hawker was, and would not know him again. When the goods were packed ready to come away witness said "You will be expected to giv3 some account of how you came into possession of all these things. He said; '" You have not given me a chance to, account for them." Witness said. " Well, here's your chance now. ' He said, " Well in won't make any difference to my position if I say anything now. I will account for them at the proper time." Next day in the inspector's office, in the presence of the inspector, the sub-inspector, Detective Cooney, and witness, when called for an explanation by the inspector as to his possession of the gooda, accused said he would not make any explanation then. To Mr Hanlon: Mr Gre«nslade told witness that he identified the tweetb and: rug as the property of the D.1.C., and Mr Campbell said he was satisfied the pipes were the property of Ahlfeld Brothers. He was not positive. That was before witness laid the present information, which he thought was laid in the proper form. Ifc was laid under instructions.

Detective Cooney practically corroborated the evidence of last witness.

At this stage. iv being 4-.30 p.m., the further hearing of the case against Quill was adjourned to Monday next, the same bail as before bing allowed".

The charge against Thomas Moses, set down for hearing, was then called on, andS also formally adjourned to Monday next.