THE POLICE SCANDAL. MOSES FOUND GUILTY OF RECEIVING. OSBORNE CONVICTED OF RECEIVING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2672, 31 May 1905, Page 28

THE POLICE SCANDAL.

MOSES FOUND GUILTY OF RECEIVING.

OSBORNE CONVICTED OF RECEIVING.

M 'DONALD AND MOSES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. PLEAD GUILTY TO RECEIVING. THE JURY DISAGREE. At the Supreme Court on the 24th inst., before his Honor Mr Justice Williams, the cases of breaking and entering and theft against four ex-constafeles in the Dunedin Polioe Force were commenced. The first charges were those against i James M 'Donald and Thomas Moses, who I were charged with, about March 9, at Dun- ' edin, breaking and entering the warehouse j of the Drapery Importing Company in High street, and stealing therefrom two hair brushes, one clothe 3 brush, one silver matchbox, two soap boxes, one pair of gold sleeve links, one manicure set. one purse, three fur necklets, four umbrellas, five wool mats, two wool rugs, twoAxminster rugs, two chenille curtains, one bottle of scent, and one clock, the property of the said company. On a second count accused were charged with stealing the above-mentioned goods, and on a third count they were charged with reoeiving ' them knowing them to have been stolen. ' Mr Sim appeared on behalf of the 1 accused Moses, and Mr Hanlon on behalf of accused M 'Donald Both accused pleaded " Guilty " on the third count — namely, that of receiving Mr Sim : There is a question of whether my friend .is entitled to proceed with a trial i on the other counts of the indictment. ' The Crown Prosecutor: I do not propose to accept £he plea for the third count; I propose to proceed with the major oount Mr Sim submitted that a man could not be a thief and a receiver also with regard to the same goods. The accused had pleaded " Guilty " on one count, and that offence was inconsistent with the offences of the other counts. If there had been a general plea of " Guilty " the jury would have had to be directed to convict on one j count only. If the accused were guilty of \ receiving goods, these having been stolen by another- person, it would be impossible for a jury to convict on. the first two counts. His Honor said the effect of Mr Sim's argument would be that, in a case whore there was, as usual, a count for housebreaking and theft involving a very severe penalty, ' it would be always open to the accused to avoid the severe punishment by pleading guilty to receiving only. Mr Sim: The Crown has to take that, risk. ■ His Honor: Oh, no. Where is your authority ? Mr Sim : I don't think any authority is needed, your Honour. How can a man be convicted of stealing certain goods and also of being receiver of the same goods? Their plea is recorded. His Honor: I hardly think so. The plea is not recorded. The accused simply says so. It is always open to the Crown, if there is a major and a minor offence in the same indictment, and a prisoner pleads guilty to the minor offence, to say that plea will not be accepted, but that trial on the other will be proceeded with. Mr Sim said the Crown was no doubt entitled to do that if the offences were cumulative. His Honor: Suppose there was a case where a crime was charged and an attempt, and an accused pleads guilty to the attempt, the Crown Prosecutor might say: "I won't accept that plea," and try the man for the offence. Mr Sim : I submit that in this case the two offences are inconsistent, and the court wouid stultify itself. How can the accused get away from their plea? They are bound by their plea. His Honor : I should have thought there was no question about the matter, Mr Sim. Mr Sim said that where the offence to which a man pleaded guilty was inconsistent with the other offence with whioh he was oharged, and negatived the other, the court would stultify itself by proceeding with the other. Suppose there had been a general plea of " Not guilty," his Honor would have had to direct the jury that it could not find accused guilty on the three counts, but would have to convict of breaking and entering and theft, or of theft, or of simply reoeiving. If they pleaded guilty to the offence of reoeiving, this was certainly equivalent to the verdict | of a jury. His Honor: I feel no doubt about the | subject. ; Mr Sim: Will your Honor consider the | matter further? His Honor wa3 understood to say he would give it further consideration. The following jury was then empanelled : James Ferguson (foreman), John M. Brown, Herbert Coull, Denis O'Brien, William Robert Perry, William J. Ingram, William H. Newman, John M'Pherson, Alfred Gregory. George Andrews, William M'Laren, and Frederick V. Fail. The Crown Prosecutor, in opening the case, said the two accused were at the time of the alleged offence police officers in the service of the Government of the colony. He was glad to say that it was rarely indeed that an offence of this class was charged against members of the Police Force, but the fact undoubtedly made the offence much greater than if it had been committed by an ordinary civilian. He need hardly 6ay that a member of the Police Force on entering his Majesty's service took an oath, and it was unnecessary to explain how essential it was in the interests of the community that police officials should faithfully perform their duties. It was no exaggeration to say that the whole superstructure of the administration of the colony finally rested on the Police Force of the colony. In the present case the building alleged to have been broken into was th© D.I.C. warehouse in High street and Rattrav street. A very large number of hands was employed by the D.I.C, and a grave result of the alleged offence was that suspicion was cast on every | employee of the firm. Th© offence was committed some time on the night of March 8 last. As to the facts, he must admit that he could not tell th© jury of the actual theft— that was to say, how ingress- was obtained. He could say how th© building was locked, and must have been opened by foul means; but by what means ingress was got he could nofc say. There were ways, of course, by means of skeleton and duplicate keys in which a locked door offered little difficulty to expert lnem'bera of the criminal classes. Considerable precautions were adopted by the D.1.0. in regard to their key*. The practice was L that afte* lnnt-ng v.s the keys were jjlaced

in a tin box, which was locked and the key of it retained by a certain employee, who took the locked tin box to the Police Station, where it was locked in a wooden box, the key of which was also retained by the same employee, who came' next morning and took away the tin box with thekey3. That arrangement was made no doubt so that in the event of fire at the D.I.C. warehouse the police would have, ready access to the building. This was the custom, a custom which was on one occasion not complied Avith, with the result that the keys remained from Saturday till Monday at th© Police Station in an unlocked box, this being on March 4. It was an ! easy matter to take the imprint of a key in wax. On the Bth of March a somewhat | extensive theft took place, and on the discovery of a quantity of the stuff the matter I was placed in the hands of the chief detective on the 9th. By this time the latter's suspicions were aroused, and as soon as the theft was reported he for his own purposes used a misleading crime report, casting the onus of the offence on a* well-known criminal expert to allay suspicion. The next heard of the case was from Robert M'Quillan, who lived next door to the accused Moses, and he said that on March 15 Moses entered his shop in uniform early in the morning (when he should have been elsewhere on nis beat), and said he wanted to store away a quantity of wedding presents. | He (Moses) took a box away and returned i with it packed up, and a bag also, and 'left these with M'Quillan, saying he would like him to look after them as the locks of his cottage were not very good. Mo&es was arrested th© same day, and on the following day the police got possession of i these articles, which were found to be portion of the goods mentioned in the information. The house of the accused Moses being searched, some of the articles mentioned in tho information were found, and under the mattress of a bed were two new umbrellas. In respect to these, Detective Herbert said to Moses, " You see it is all up now ; where did you get these from?'* and he replied, "I got them from Dick and M'Kechnie's : one night I found their shop open." As for the accused M'Donald, his house was searched in the j presence of himself and his wife, and a very large amount of new property was found there. There was a manhole in the ceiling, and in a recess in the roof two bundles of new goods were found. The detective said, "These are D.IC. goods." and M'Donald replied, " Yes, they are." M'Donald stated that the D.I.C. keys kept at the Police Station were never used to get into the D.I.C, and that statement proved that he knew how the D.I.C. was broken into and that there must be in existence either in his own or his accomplice's possession, master keys designed from the keys in the Police Station. There was something 1 very striking about the similarity of the goods in possession of the two accused. There appeared to have been a rough distribution of the spoil between them, for both had similar articles, and some curious results followed. Both accused were on night duty at the time, and both were in proximity to the D.I.C. Dealing with the articles stolen, the Crown Prosecutor said that in respect to the curtains, for instance, one would be found in possession of accused Moses and another in possession of M'Donald, and of these duplicates would be found in the D.I.C. to-day, and they were never sold except in pairs. Then again, as to the two brushes found in M'Donald's possession, each of these was one of a pair, and their mates would be produced at the D.I.C. to-day, for odd brushes were taken and odd ones left. As to the clothes brush this was also taken from a set of two, and the other one had only to be produced, as he showed them, to make the article complete. A pair of gold sleeve links were missed of the exact pattern of ~>those found, and there was a manicure set stolen of an exactly similar set found in possession of accused. The blue purse was old stock that could not be got rid of till it disappeared, and was again found in accuseds' possession. As to the five fur necklets, these were D.I.C. furs, were identified as stolen, and admitted to have been sto'en. The bottle of scent was taken, and its ease left, and he produced the case, when it could be seen that the two articles belonged to one another. A clock was missed from the D.I.C. exactly similar to that found in the possession of the accused, and the rugs were also identified as D.I.C. property. Obviously the two accused had been concerned in a joint raid, and they divided the spoil, one man taking one article and the other a similar one. Evidence for the Crown, as previously reported, was then given by Thomas Henry Wilden (carpet-lav-er employed by the D.I.C), John Vivian (packer in the D.I.C), Elijah Henry Harrop (buyer for the D.I.C. fancy goods department). Francis Birley (shopwalker), "William Bach (head of a department at the D.I.C), Frederick William Bolt (warehouseman at the D.I.C). Bessie May Pearoe (in charge of D.I.C. fancy good« department), Winifred Carrol (shop assistant at the D.I.C), Robei-t M'Quillan (grocer), James Dick (of the firm of Dick and M'Kechnie), Police-sergeant Ryan, Sergeant Hiprgins, Chief Detective Herbert, Detective Cocrney, aud Constable Gale. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr Sim said he did not intend to call evidence. The accused Moses desired to make a statomont to the effect that he received the goods found in his possession from Reddington, the night watchman) Would the accused make his statement now or after the Crown Prosecutor had addressed the jury? His Honor said it really did not matter. He oould make it at the- present stage if he chose. Accused Moses said : " I received the goods from Henry Reddington, the night watchman. I never broke into the D.I.C, nor did I steal anything from there." Mr Hanlon said he did not intend to call evidence on behalf of M'Donald. The Crown Prosecutor addressed the jury. One of the accused, he said, had made a statement that he had reoeived the goods from another person. It was his (Mr Fraser's) duty to point out that there was not one shred of evidence to substantiate that theory of a defence, or to support it, and that for the first time it was heard that day. As far as the jury knew the defence might as readily cay that the goods were handed to them by any one of the 12 men in the jury box. Mr Sim, addressing th© court on behalf of Moses, said the Crown had put the charge in three ways. It had charged the accused with breaking into the D.I.C. premises and stealing goods. The second .Tray, ig which £he Crown put the charge

was that the accused stole certain goats*, from the D.I.C. Then it put it in another way. It said : " You, Moses, received a. certain lot of goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and you, M'Donald, received a oertain other lot of goods, knowing them to have been stolen." The accused had pleaded guilty to the last charge, and they had to accept the punishment the law fixed! for that offence The Crown, however, asked the jury to say that, although the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving the goods, they .were also guilty of the theft of them. He (learnedcounsel) put it to the jury that a mart could not be both thief and receiver; ife was not consistent with logic. Dealing with the facts, Mr Sim submitted that th« Crown had shown it was impossible for any person to have got into the D.I.C. by means of the keys in the Police Station, or by means of a window, and yet the jury was asked to believe that the men had broken into and. entered these premises. There was n °t a tittle of evidenoe to show that the place had been broken into. If tho men had wanted to do shop-breaking they surely would not have selected a nighfc when they were on duty; they would have selected a night when they were off duty, and they would not have run the risk o£ being detected by half a dozen or more of their comrades and superiors. Mr Fraser had suggested that on this night the key box in the Police Station was left unlocked. The jury were to believe that the accused l took advantage, and taking the keys out had false keys made. But there was no evidence of that a-t all, and any suggestion of the kind was most unreasonable. Tha jury ought to be very careful in weighing the facts. There had been a great deal of prejudice created against the men, and the Crown Prosecutor, instead of allaying thai; prejudice, had done all he could to aggravate it by the way in which he opened tha case. It would be monstrous to find" the men guilty of breaking and entering the premises on the evidence before the court. Why had Reddington not been called? The Crown dare not call him. It knew that Reddington was trying to save his skin at the expense of these men. Learned counsel asked the jury to believe that these goods were stolen by someone else, and given by that person to Moses. In addition to no evidenoe of breaking and entering, Mr Sim submitted that there was no evidence on the second count — that the men stole the goods. The only theory consistent with the facts was that the accused did not steal the goods, but were merely receivers, and that the only offence of which they had been guilty was that to which they had pleaded guilty — that of receiving. If tha jury found in that way, the plea of the accused of guilty of receiving stood, and the punishment for that was anything up to seven years. Mr Hanlon, speaking in defence of M'Donald, said that what the jury had to consider was this : Is it proved beyond all reasonable doubt that these two men broke and entered the premises of the D.L.C. ? If they were not satisfied of that they would acquit the accused on that count, and ifc would follow, he thought, that they would be acquitted on the charge of theft. What; the Crown Prosecutor had said about a case of this kind striking at the foundation of justice had nothing to do with the case, neither had his allegation that suspicion" might be thrown on other constables or on the employees of the D.I.C. He submitted that if the jury were to find that the premises had been broken into they must drawon their imagination to assist them to such a conclusion The accused admitted that they were guilty of receiving the goods. As soon as M'Donald was charged with the offence he told Detective Herbert that the goods were from the D.LC. Learned counsel analysed the theory of the Crown that M'Donald had left his post to commit a crime, and showed that from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. he had been visited in the watchhouso seven times by someone connected with the foroe, in addition to which he must have known that the sorgeant might come in, or that any constable might bring in an offender, and if he was not there he would have been in trouble. The story that M'Donald was merely a receiver and not the thief, was probably the truth, and M'Donald's conduct was consistent with that story. Moses had given his statement from the dock as to how he came into possession of the property. The statement certainly made a charge against another man, and the Crown Prosecutor had said : "If you acquit these men you are convicting someone else." But that was not so, and even if it were it had nothing to do with the case. The jury were sworn to find a. verdict according to the evidenoe, and were bound by the evidence only, and not by any of the wild statements mado by the Crown Prosecutor about the gravity of the case or the superstructure of justice. His Honor, in summing up. reviewed! the principal points in the evidence, and. referring to the plea of the accused, said that, looking at the peculiarity of the case, the Crown was justified in proceeding with the major count, if only to get all the evidence that could be brought forward to see if it were not possible to get the real truth of the matter. It; was a matter of great public interest, and the more the thing could be thrashed out the better it would be for everybody. The jury retired at 5.14 p.m. In reply to the registrar, the Foreman stated that the jury had failed to agree. His Honor : I am sorry, Mr Foreman. Can I assist you ? The Foreman : I do not think it could help us in any way at all. His Honor : I shall have to discharge you until 10.30 to-morrow morning. Mr Fraser said he proposed to re-try the case the following morning. There were special reasons why it might be in« advisable to leave it over. His Honor : Would it not be better to re-consider it ? Mr Sim : Does my friend suggest going on with this case ? x% His Honor : Yes. Mr Sim : I would suggest to my friend that he should accept the pleas of "Guilty" to the charge of receiving. Mr Fraser : I can call the witness Red"dington to-morrow. After the defence that has been raised it is advisable that he should be put in the box. His Honor : The case can stand ove» until to-morrow morning conditionally, so as to allow further time to reconsider it. Mr Fraser : Very well, your Honor. The court then adjourned until 10.3Q next niorning.

No less than 12 persons were charged ■with drunkenness at the Auckland Polio» Court on Monday last.

SENTENCE DEFERRED.

The charges of theft against ex-members of the Dunedin Police Force- were advanced a Stage on the 25th inst. "

"When his Honor took his seat on the bench »t half-past 10 a.m the Crown Prosecutor (Mr J. F. M. Fraser) asked his Honor .to allow the case against Mosee and M'Donald, heard on the previous day, to stand over. He proposed to proceed with another charge against Moses. His Honor: Very well. Thomas Moses was then charged with, «n .or about the T^fch of January, 1905, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the shop of the Drapery and General Importing Company, and stealing therefrom 82yds of cloth. two •umbrellas, and one rug, the property of the said company. On a second count he was charged with stealing the goods from the shop of the D.1.C. ; on a third count with the theft of the goods; and on a fourth count with receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The accused, who was defended by Mr Sim, pleaded "Not guilty." The following jury was empaneiHed : — Robert C. Jones (foreman) Alexander Dippie, Joseph H. Bond, Thomas Gawn, James Fairbairne, Henry Harris, John MTherson, William Robert Perry, H. H. Henderson, Charles Stevenson, William Sainsbury, and William Neill. All the witnesses were ordered out of oourfe •* "The Crown Prosecutor said it would be proved to the jury thai on or about the 14£h of January the D.I.C. building was securely locked, yet certain goods were missed from it — namely, two umbrellas, two suit lengths x>f valuable cloth, and a Mosgiel rug. These articles would, he thought, be clearly identified to the satisfaction of the jury as reasonable men. In all cases of this kind there was always a possibility of +he same class of cloth being sold by another manufacturer in the colony, but it would be proved that the identical cloth was in the possession of the company, that twtT lengths" were taken from it, and that the. sample card with a duplicate of the cloth was in the possession of the company. There was Teally no question as to the exact identification of the clotfi. - The umbrellas would be sworn to with as much particularity as was possiblei. The filg was one that a young man had hung up in the shop at night. Next morning it was missing. The assistant was absolutely convinced that this rug was the property of the company. The circumstances under which the articles were found were these: The umbrellas were found in the house of the accused. The other articles were found under circumstances that weare- peculiar, and certainly highly suspicious. The morning, before the accused was errested he went to the house of a. neighbour, Mr M'Quillan, at the corner of- Castle and Hanover streets, and asked for a, box, in which he said he wanted to pack eosK wedding- presents. Later on the accused 'returned with the box and a bag. and asked Mr -M'Quillan to look after theon as- he was going away for a holiday. That - day the - police ma.de • a search of the accused's 1 house. M'Quillan noticed this, and, being a shrewd man and not fishing to b§ mixed up- in anything 1 suspicious, he put .-the box and the bag over the fence into the- yard -of acused's house. The box .and bag. were opened by the police, and were found to contain a number of articles which; it - was " alleged, were stolen goods. Learned counsel submitted that as the particular goods in this case were found along with other stolen property, the jury must arrive at the conclusion that they were the goods stolen from the D.I.C. The suit lengths -were of better stuff than the average man could wear, and when they found a police constable getting 7s 6d a day with such valuable. cloth and two -such expensive umbrellas the jury shouW have no difficulty in arriving at a conolusion as to how accused became possessed of them. The D.1.0. premises, learned counsel suggested, were opened by either a skeleton or master key. During the progress of the ease the jury would hear the name of one Reddington mentioned, and from what the accused had eaid the interpretations to be placed on this matter were either that Reddington, a one-armed Tiight watchman, committed the offence, or that accused got the stuff from Reddington, or that (to use a slang term) Reddington had " given him away." He (Mr Fraser) proposed to put Reddington in the box to give evidence rebutting the possibility of a defence -of that kind. As a matter of. fact, Mcses was on duty within 80 yards of tike D.I.C. on the night of the robbery. Evidence was given by John Vivian, Robert M'Quillan, Charles M'lntyre GreenGlade, Charles John M'Crombie, and Percy Stark.

A new witness was brought forward in the person of Michael" Henry Reddington, •who said he was employed by a number of firms to act as outside, night watchman. His dirties brought him in contact with the police who were on night duty, and he personally knew every member of the force. He had known Moees for over a year. Witness lost his arm a good many years ago, and supported himself by working as a night watchman. He had never- given goods or chattels of - any kind to the accused. He -had never given him anything in his life. By Mr Sim: He had been night watchman for nine years. He had a brother named Jack. He had not heard of an excursion his brother's wife made to Christchuroh when the police scandal came out, neither had he ever heard of extensive burnings taking place at his brother's place at the same time. He did not think bis brother ever told Moses to get rid of any stuff as the detectives were going to search his house. Witness never spoke to his brother in his life about it. He admitted he had been in conclave with the detectives a good deal during the past few weeks. With hiTn it was not a case of " Save yourself if you can." The men had tried to tiring' him into it for the reason that Moses blamed him because he gave information to Detective Cconey. He told the detective about- it two or three days after the last robbery, at the D.TO. Witness had assisted the police to arrest men. He had once Been charged with assault. He had never paid' £20 to "square" an assault case. He paid £10 to save a constable getting into trouble. It was not a fact that robberies had been .reported from places he Bad to watch, except the ones now before the court. There was a robbery at Mackerras and Hazlett's, one at the Cooperative Store in Maclaggan street, and one at Moritzson and Company's. Witness had no keys for enierinor business places.

though he had keys to enable him to get into back yards. To the Crown Prosecutor : In the early part of the year there were a good many complaints of robberies. He had suspicions, and gave certain information to Detee-tno Cooney. It was an unpleasant thing 1o do, but he had to do his duty to his employers. He had keys for Jhe bottling department at Powley and Keast's, where there had been a number of fires. Altogether he watched between 40 and 50 P Evidence was also given by Chief Detective Herbert, Sergeant Higgins, Sergeant Ryan, and Constable Gale. This concluded the case for the Crown. Mr Sim said he did not intend to call evidence, and The Crown Prosecutor did not address the Mr Sim then addressed the jury on behalf of the accused. Speaking of the case which was before the court on the previous day against Moses and M'Donald, who were charged jointly with breaking into the D.I.C. premises and stealing therefrom — a ease in which they had pleaded guilty to receiving — he said that if the Crown Prosecutor had not been so bloodthirsty he would have been satisfied with the plea that was entered, and there the matter would have ended. But he was not satisfied with it. He had tried to get a jury to convict the two men of entering the D.I.C, but had failed and he now wanted a jury to say, on much more slender evidence, that the accused was guilty of the serious offence of breaking and entering. - What evidence was there against the accused in the present case? The Jury must be satisfied in the first place that the goods were the property of the D.I.C, and in the second place that they were stolen. What evidence was there that the goods had been stolen? The D.I.C. existed for the purpose of selling goods of this class, and had it been proved ' to the jury that the particular goods before the court had not been sold? The evidence did not shov. beyond all reasonable doirbt that the goods were the property of the D.I.C. or that they were stolen, and it absolutely negatived the theory that; Moses had broken and entered the premises. As a matter of fact, there # was no evidence to show that the warehouse had been broken and entered, and he confidently submitted that if the jury weighed the evidence carefully they would bring in a verdict of " Not guilty." His Honor, in summing up said that the goods were found in the possession of the accused with other goods which were stolen goods, and which he admitted he had received, knowing them to have been stolen. The ' fact of there being found in the possession of a third person a. number of articles exactly - corresponding to the missing goods greatly strengthened the probability that the articles so found were the articles that were missed. The jury retired at 3 p.m., and returned at 4.5 p.m. with a verdict of " Guilty " on the fourth count — that of receiving. His Honor deferred passing sentence.

SENTENCES DEFERRED. Bearing of the charges against ex-mem-bera of the police force was continued at ths Supreme Court before his Honor Mr Justice "Williams on the 26th inst. THE CHARGE AGAINST M'DONALD AND MOSES. The "Crown Prosecutor stated that in respect to the charge against Thomas Moses and- James M 'Donald, of breaking and entering, theft, and receiving, in regard to which a plea of receiving had been entered, and the jury had disagreed on the trial as to the other two counts, he did not propose to proceed with the ma-jor offence, but would accept the plea of receiving. M'DONALD'S CASE. James M'Donald was charged with about September, 1904, breakiner and entering the warehouse of Ahlfeld Brothers, Dowling street, and stealing a cold-mounted purse, an alarm clock, 16 combs, five tablespoons, and one pair of opera classes. On second and third counts he was charged with theft and with receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr Hanlon appeared for M'Donald, who pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving only. The Crown Prosecutor said he was content to accept that plea. His Honor said he would not need to call upon him then t<y state the case for the Crown. Before passing sentence he would liko to hear all these cases. QUILL'S CASE. Mr Hanlon appeared on behalf of exConstable Quill, against whom a charge of theft has to be heard, and suggested that as Osborne's case was likely to take some time, and his Honor would be leaving for Invereargill on Monday, and as the Crown Prosecutor did not object. Quill's ease might be set down ior hearing on June 12. for which date there was a jury summoned. Hie Honor approved of the date as suitable, and said the sittings could be adjourned till June 12. THE CHARGES AGAINST OSBORNE. Oliver Henry Osborne was charged with, on or about December last at Dunedin, stealing from the shop of Messrs Kilroy and Sutherland, Princes street, seven silk handkerchiefs; on a second count he was charged with stealing the above articles, and on a third count with receiving them, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr Solomon appeared for the accused, who pleaded no.t guilty. The following jury was empanelled : — John M. Brown (foreman). George Andrews, "William Morland, Alfred J. H. Gregory, Thomas Gawn, Archibald Campbell. Arthnr Webber, "William J. Ingram, James Newton, "William R. Perry, Henry Henderson, and Samuel White. Mr Solomon submitted that the first two counts of the indictment were the same. The Crown Prosecutor said he was prepared to treat them as one, and his Honor assented to this course being 1 adopted. The Crown Prosecutor, detailing the facts of the case, said : The graver offence was usually contained in the first count of an indictment, but in this case the second count constituted the graver offence, for it was manifestly a graver offence for a police constable to receive stolen property, in that it involved a breach of duty in not disclosing the name of the original offender, and it meant, further, participation in the crime and practically entering into a confederacy with the Principal offender. Thiß case pre-

sented some features that partly distinguished it from the cases already tried He could not suggest that accused made any effort to conceal hip, offence when it was brought home to him. On the contrary, he practically made a partial full confession of guilt. For example, with respect to these handkerchiefs, which were clearly identified as the property of Messrs Kilroy and Sutherland, drapers, and as having been stolen from their premises, he said. " Yes, I received these handkerchiefs from Hoses." The boxes containing these handkerchiefs would be produced, and we/c not found in possession of the accused. The handkerchiefs were valuable ones, four of them being small and three beinsr of special value. He could not prove how the handkerchiefs were stolen, or whether thp.y were stolen by accused or by someone from whom he received them. In these cases he might say he had received moie assistance fiom the police than i.c had ever had previously, and he was in the habit of receiving valuable assistance from them. Evidence for the prosecution was given by Samuel Lawn (draper's assistant). Chief Detective Herbert, and Detective Coonoy. No evidence was called for the defence Mr Solpmon, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said he did not think it was necessary for him to say that he approached the defence with a very large amount of responsibility. He did not feel any responsibility about this pai'ticular case, which, if it stood alone, he thought would be laughed out of court. The jury, howevei, had to gxiard themselves against unconsciously depriving a man of something he had a right to. This case stood on a different footing to the one preceding it — that of Moses. In that case it was con- | clusively shown that the goods aJleged to > be stolen had not been sold, all the employees in the establishment who could pos- j sibly have sold the arti<VU».s having been ' called as witnesses, and stated that they , did not sell them. In that case also the ' goods were there when the place was locked up one night, and the next morning were missed. In the present case, however, only one employee from an establishment which employed a number of hands was called, and all that was shown was that the handkerchiefs were there a month pi-ior to their being missed. It was not. shown whether the witness who was called was even an employee whose duty it would be to sell ha,ndkeroh.ie£s, much less that he was the only employee to do so. There was not one tittle of evidence to show that the handkerchiefs were stolen by anybody. He admitted that in accused's ease receiving the articles, knowing them to have been stolen, was a more serious offence than simply the theft of them. For the former offence he was liable to a punishment not exceeding seven years, but for the latter to a penalty not exceeding two years. It was not according a, man British justice to tell a jury that it could not be proved that accused stole the goods, and at the same time to ask them to find him guilty of receiving them, in the face of the statement he had made. His Honor, in summing up, said tbjat although accused told the truth as to how he got possession, of these goods, this did not exonerate him from guilty knowledge of how they might have originally been come by. If "this man was a receiver, it was pretty clear that he was simply the tool of someone else, and his punishment would be inflicted on that basis if he was found guilty. If the jury were satisfied from the evidence that he was guilty of receiving they should not be frightened to find a verdict for fear he should get the more severe punishment. The jury retired at 12.45 p.m., and returned after the adjournment at 2 p.m., when the foreman said the jury wished him to ask his Honor if he could inform them whether the tobacco (which was found in accused's possession, and which he told ' Detective Herbert he had got from Red- , dington and Quill one morning outside i Curtis's shop) was stolen before the hand- | kerchiefs or not. His Honor, after looking at the evidence, said there was nothing to show which he got first. The Foreman : WelJ, so far, I hardly know how to place the position, but we cannot agree unless we get that information. You informed us, in summing up, the ' accused must have known His Honor: I read the evidence. The Foreman: With your permission we will retire and see what can be done. His Honor: Very well. The jury returned again at 2.25 p.m. The Foreman said : "We are agreed upon the third count — that accused is ' Guilty ' of receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen. The jury desire to recommend him to mercy, he having been the tool of others." I His Honor: It looks as if he were certainly. The same accused was further charged with, on or about the year 1904, at Dun©din, stealing eight cakes of Colgate soap, 23 sticks of tobacco, five packets of cigarette paper, two wood pipes, one hair comb, one hair brush, one clothes brush, one memorandum book, one crocodile leather cigar-case, two pairs of children's shoes, and one pair of children's boots; and on a second count was charged with receiving the above goods, knowing them to have been stolen. Accused pleaded " Guilty " to receiving. The Crown Prosecutor intimated that he accepted the plea. Oliver Henry Osborne was then further charged with, on or about the year 1904, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the shop of James Wallace in Brinoes street, and stealing five packets of envelopes and two packets of notepaper ; on a second count he was charged with theft from the shop of James Wallace ; on a third with theft ; and on a fourth "with receiving the articles, knowing them to have been stolen. Accused pleaded "Guilty" to l-eceiving. The Crown Prosecutor : I accept the plea. His Honor: The only other case that remains to be dealt with, Mr Fraeer, is Quill's case, which is fixed for Monday fortnight. The Crown Prosecutor: That is so. JTIb Honor,' I think, under the circumstances, it would be expedient to defer passing- sentence on the persons who have been oonvicted or have pleaded "Guilty" until Quill's case is disposed of. It is quite evident that we have not got to the bottom of these thefts, and it is quite possible in the course of the next fortnight some further light will be thrown upon them, which will enable one to discriminate more satis- | factorily between the guilt of the different | persons accused. At anyrate. no one suffers by sentence being postponed. I will not pass sentence just now. Jurors wore then finally discharged, and

the court adjourned till 10.30 a.m, Monday, June 12