QUILL COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

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

QUILL COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.

The adjourned charge lagainsi; Edwarcfc Quill was proceeded with at the City Police Court on Monday morning before Mr C. C. Graham. S.M.

The charge against accused was that on or about the 18th day of March, 1905, at Dunedin. he did steal 1 rug, 2 rolls of tweed, 1 hair-clipping machine, 19 boot laces, 10 sticks of tobacco, 3 pipes, 1 umbrella, cover. 1 pair men's gloves, 3 boxes of shaving soap, 1 silver-mounted purse, 1 shaving brush, 1 amber cig-ar holder, 1 amber* cigarette holder in case, 1 footrule 1 pocket-knife. 2 files, 23 bits. 6 packets •envelopes, 1 bottle of perfume — total value £10, — the property of some person or persons unknown.

Charles M. Greenslade. shop assistant at the D.1.C., in charge of the clothing and woollen department, identified a piece of black diagonal coating as like a piece of material in stock in January last. He- produced a pattern from the pattern book identical with the piece of cloth produced. Its retail price was 13s 6d per yard. The piece produced was the balance of a roll fhev had in stock, the rest of the roll having been made up into garments. To Mr Hanlon : The length of the piece produced woxild be about 02 yards. To his Worship : When h-e saw the piece in stock in January la=t he would say there was from 3 to 4 yards in if. To Mr Hanlon: About 50 yards of the same material had been sold during the 12 months preceding January. He supposed the frame material coiu^ he had at othet lailo-i't. in Dunediii. but it would be a good? day's work to get it matched in the city. 1b was quite po*-ib!e. but very improbable, that the piecp produced was sold over the counter. Coating- was frequently e.okl over the. counter by the piece. He claimed the cloth the fh^t time he saw if at the Police Station as the property of the D.T.C. He would not swear positively that the pieces belonged to the D.1.C., or that it e\er did belona- to the firm.

Percy Scarfe. shop assistant at the D.I.C, =aid he remembered closing up the premises on the 13th January last. He took in four rugs, before clcsing and put them on the counter in his department. Next morning he missed two of these ru^s. He had handled all these rugs for a. fortnight previously, and ivas familiar with their texture and design. A rug produced was identical with one missed in value, weight, pattern, and texture, and he recognised it as bucH at the Police Station. He had another identical with it in pattern in stock, whicH he now produced.

To Mr Hanlon : The rugs came from the Mosgicl Woollen Company, who might turn, out large numbers of them. It was a newi pattern, and the firm had not had any 4 like them in stock for the last four years, j These rugs were not specially made for the'

D.I.C, and it might be possible to get such rugs from other firms. Could not identify the rug produced as having ever belonged to the D.I.C.

Charles John M'Combie, employed at the D.I.C, said he worked in the clothing- deptutment under Mr Greenslade. All sales in that departm&nt were conducted by Mr Gieeuplade or himself. Witness had never sold a yard of the cloth produced. To Mr Hanlon : He eoulc! not cay he had ever seen the material produced b&fore, but knew he had not sold any of it. William Hunter Campbell, employed by Ahlfeld and Sons, said he had been in charge of the fancy goods department for the last six years. Four of the employees took week about in locking up and opening the premises. There were three keys of the door, one being kept by the man who locked, and another by each of the two partners. The doors had never been found open to witness's knowledge. In May, 1904, witness missed a tobacco pipe, which was kept in a glass case. The pipe prodiuced was similar to the one missing. These kind of pipes were all very much the same. The firm had only one of these pipes in stock. The firm stocked pipes like the two briars Droduced, and also cigar and cigarette holders similar to those produced. The firm stocked knives, shaving soap, and hairclippers similar to those produced. To Mr Hanlon : Witness could not swear that any of these things belonged to his firm. They might be got in almost any fancy goods warehouse, and some might be purchased in tobacconists.

This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Hanlon submitted the Crown had failed to make out a prima facie case against accused. In order to arrive at a conclusion his Worship had to consider the whole of the circumstances, and had first to look at; the information. The information said that these articles alleged to have been stolen by accused were the property of some person or persons unknown. From that it was plain that the prosecution recognised tht it was unable to have any of the articles identified as the property of any particular penson If the prosecution could 1 not for a moment allege that these articles were the property of any particular person, then it came within the law as laid down in Roscoe that some proof must be given sufficient to raise the presumption that the taking was felonious. That meant that the prosecution, before getting a committal, must raise some reasonable presumption that the goods found in the possession of accused, and which he was charged with stealing, were the property of some persons unknown, and that they were removed without the oonsent or authority of that person, and against his will. Now there was not the slightest evidenoe whatever of that having taken place. Counsel also referred to East's Pleas of the Crown, and applying a sentence used by IJord Hale, said under that there was no evidence before his Worship that there had been a felony committed with regard to the goods placed before him. There was not one person who had come to the court and told his Worship that any article could be identified as an article stolen from their premises, and in that case accused could not be called upon to account for the possession of the goods. Not one article had been proved to have been stolen, and was there any justification for calling upon accused, under the circumstances, to account for possession of the goods? The prosecution must prove theft. Mr Fraser had said that accused's refusal to account for the possession of the goods was an admission of guilt, but the fact that he had not given an account could not be taken as evidence against him. Even if he had concealed the goods, which was carrying the matter further, it was not evidenoe of stealing. Counsel pointed out that no efforts had been made at concealment by accused.

Mr Frasei having replied,

His Worship said he must take Into consideration the whole of the circumstances laid before him, and doing that, there was a presumption that theft had been committed, though the goods had not been identified. There was an element of doubt, and he thought a jury should decide. He would' not take upon himself the responsibility of dismissing the case. Accused was then cautioned, reserved his defence, and was committed for trial. Mr Hanlon called for bail, the application being opposei by Mr Fraser.

His Worship said he would treat the case the same as the others, and grant bail, accused in £400, and two sureties of £200 each.

ANOTHER CHARGE AGAINST THOMAS MOSES.

Thomas Moses, at present under remand to the Supreme Court, was charged that he did, on the 14th day of January, 1905, at Dunedin, break and enter the warehouse of the Drapery and General Importing Company of New Zealand, Ltd., and did steal therefroai 8£ yards of cloth, two umbrellas, and one Mosgiel rug, the property of the said company, and of the total value of £10.

Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the accused. >

Mr J. F. M. Fraser, for the Crown, said the charge against accused was that of breaking and entering the premises of the D.I.C. on January 14-, and that he did then commit the theft with which he was charged. The Crown could not offer a-ny evidenoe as to the means used to enter the premises, and it was suggested that the Accused had either possessed himself of a duplicate key, or had used the ordinary kind of key used by burglars. The cloth mentioned in the information was a special piece that had been cut off by Mr Greenslade the same day. The rug and the piece of grey suiting were afterwards found in the accused's possession in A case o^ bundle which he falsely represented contained wedding presents. The umbrellas were of a kind stocked by the D.I.C. and were expensive goods of their kind. No doubt the usual question would he raised by the defence that the identification of the goods was not complete, but he hoped to present such evidence to his Worship as would leave him in no difficulty to decide that the goods weie stolen by the aocused.

John Vivian, a packer in the employ of the D.I.C, gave evidence that in the course of his duty he locked up all the premises on the evening of January 13, and that he afterwards tested the High street door, which closed with a spring, and ascertained that it was fastened, ana that the keys, looked in boxes, were afterwards depogited by him sit the Police Station, witness stated that he had never, when going to bpten. up the premise^ yi January, found the dooTs unlocked.. Robert M'C^uillanf, grocer, corner Hanover ana !#§tls' 6tr«fitg, re^ej^e^jthe^ridgiigs

given by him in a former case as to statements made by accused when applying for a box in which he wished to pack some goods.

As accused's counsel had an engagement to fulfil at 5.30 p.m. the further hearing of the charge was adjourned till the 12th mst.