THE POLICE SCANDAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2674, 14 June 1905, Page 34

THE POLICE SCANDAL.

QUILL ACQUITTED.

SENTENCES OF THE OTHER ACCUSED.

At the Supreme Court on Monday the last of the series of charges of theft agauist a number of ex-pol'oo constables in Dunedm was heard before Mr Justice Williams. Edward Quill was charged with, between the Ist January. 1904, and the 15th of March, 1905, at Dunedin, stealing one rug, two pieces of clcth, one hair-clipping machine, 19 bootlaces, 10 sticks of tobacco, three pipes, on.* umbrella coyer, one pair of gloves, two boxes of shaving soap, one silver-mounted purse, one shaving brush, one cigar-holder, one cigarette-holder, one footrule, one pocket knife, two files, 23 bitts, and six packets of envelopes. On a Eecond count tiie accused was charged with, on or about the 3£th of March last, receiving tha above-named goods, knowing them to have been stolen.

The accused pleaded "Not guilty," and was defended by Mr A. C. Hanlon. The following jury was empanelled: — William Couston, jun. (foreman), Albert J. Butterfield, Robert Nye, Thomas M'Coll Anderson, Samuel Young, George W. Luscombe, William J. Whyte, John Miller, Alex. Love, William Gear, Edward Knewstubb, and John B. Salmon. Tiie Crown Prosecutor (Mr Fraser) said the prisoner, an ex-constable, was charged with theft and with receiving in respect to a number of articles, in respect to some of which he would go into detail as to the facts. The jury would probably be asked to dismiss from their minds any prejudice that might exist there by reason of the assumption that accused was onei of a confederacy of constables some of whom had been convicted of the offence charged in this indictment. The evidence in this case would, he thought, leave no doubt that the acciised was either a thief or a receiver of stolen property. Absolute sworn testimony as to identification of the articles would not bo forthcoming, but the evidence he would call would bo, in some respects, he submitted, more weighty than such. Tho two pipes mentioned in the information were of Loew-e manufacture, one being a new pipe and the other having been smoked about half a dozen times. The retail price of these pipes was from 7s to 8s each, and the accused constable, a married man, he believed, was in receipt of 7s 6d a day, so the purchase by him of such pipes was at least singular. Again, there was a third pipe, a presentation pipe, the cost of which would bo about £3 ss; this had been smoked perhaps a dozen times, and this pipe corresponded in every detail with a pipe that was stolen from Messrs Ahlfeld Bros.' warehouse. The two pieces of cloth produced were cloth of a special quality and value, and were found in the possession of accused. Asked to give an explanation about these, accused gave the most unlikely explanation a police officer could give, saying he bought the cloth from a hawker at the door one day, but he would not know the hawker again. This was quite one of the common explanations the ordinary thief gave as to his possession of doubtful property. No honest constable, he submitted, would purchase good>s of this kind at the door in this way, and if ha gave full value for them it must have been beyond his means. This cloth was identical with cloth in tho possession of the D.I.C. in January last and not sold by that firm Again, there was a Mosgiel rug, valued at about £2 ss, among the articles found in accused's possession, and an assistant at the D.I.C. would depose that he was in the habit of putting out rugs of exactly similar quality, and one morning two of these were found missing. Only two rugs of that particular pattern were kept by the firm in stock, and the mate of the stolen rug would be produced in court. The Crown Prosecutor then detailed what happened when accused's house was searched, submitting that it was curious accused could give no satisfactory explanation of how the goods oame into hi» possession.

Chief -detective Herbsrt deposed that in March last he met accused outside the Polioe Station about 7.30 and told him he wanted to search his house for property alleged to have been stolen, that the detectives had already searched Constable Osborne's house, and taken possession of a quantity of tobacco- which Osborn© said accused had given him. Accused replied, "He is a liar." "Witness, Detective Cooney, and accused went together to accused's Louso in Orange street. and took possession of the goods mention-ed in the indictment, most of these being in a spare back room. When the things had been packed up and the detectives were about to leave, witness toid accused he would be expected to give some account of how be cams into possession of all these things. Accused said: ''You have not given me a chance to account for them." Witness said, " There's your chance now." Accused replied': "It won't make aavy difference to my position if I say anything now. I will account for thorn at the proper time." When the pieces of cloth were found, accused said, '• I bought those from a hawker one day. I don't know his name, and would not know him again." On the following 1 day (March 16), in Inspector O'Brien's office, in presence of witness. Detective Cooney, and Sub-inspector Green, the goods were produced, and the inspector asked Quill what explanation he had for having possession of all these things, and he replied tht he would not make any explanation then.

To Mr Hanlon : Accused was not arrested till some days affcer his house had been searched.

Further evidence for the Crown was given by Detective Cooney, by Charles M'lntyre Greenslade, Ohas. JohnM'Conibie, and Percy Scarfe, in the employ of thq D.1.C., and by William Hunter Campbell, iv the employ of Ahlfeld Brcs.

Benjamin Curtis, tobacconist, deposed that on one occasion accused and one Reddington came to his shop. This was before a robbery of tobacco took place at witness's chop lost year. Accused and Reddington walked in, and one of them said they had a 5s bet on as to which side his back door was on. In March la,ot accused came into witness's chop, and witness suid, "You have got youiself into a nice inc«s. Why did you nor g<^ a way wirh your stuff. '' Accused ip;>luvl that Im? Wa- up country al thy time. Wuutsa naked actuicii, "" Why Uid jou maku

that bet about my back door?" Accused said, " Wha-t bet?" Witness replied, "You and Reddington, for 55." Accused said he must go and ask Reddington why be made tha.t bet. Witness had tobacco stolen from his stock last year.

To IVir Hanlon: He picked the two men whom he surmised had his stuff. He did not recollect Quill's saying the bet was about people coming out from the Shamrock through Curtis's place.

This concluded the case for the Crown

Mr Hanlon said he would not call any evidence. Addressing the jury, he said it would be noticed that in the indictment the Crown had not charged tho aocu.=ied with stealing these articles as the property of any particular person or company, for it was evidently uncertain who the property belonged to. This did not vitiate the indictment ; but it was a most singular fact that these Crown witnesses had been brought forward to pretend to identify these allegedlj stolen articles, and none of them had been able to say that they would positively swear that these articles belonged to their respective firms. Again, the Crown knew so little about the charge against the accused that they asked him to come before the court and account for the possession of property said to have been stolen between January, 1904, and March, 1905 — a matter of 15 months. Could anything be more absurd? As to the legal aspect of. the case, when a property proved to have been recently stolen was found in the possession of any person, and he could not give a satisfactory account of how he came by that property, the presumption was that he either stole that property or received it knowing it to have been stolen. In the present case it was for the Crown to prove to the entire satisfaction of the jury that the articles in question or some of them were stolen articles, and that they were found in accused's possession. If the Crown failed to prove that the articles were stolen then there was an end to the case. This was, however, a miserably weak case, and the Crown was endeavouring to support it on the crutches of prejudice. If accused were not an ex-constable, he ventured to say that the jury without leaving the box would say that there was no identification of the property, that it was not proved to their satisfaction that it was stolen, and the accused must go free. But because of this regrettable police scandal the Crown assumed that it would take less than usual to secure a oonviction, and henco the manner in which the indictment was framed. Counsel reviewed the evidence adduced by the Crown, submitting it was absurd to infffr that because the accused had in his possession three pipes worth about £3 he must have stolen them. This was surely a dreadful circumstance that he should have these pipesr He wondered if his learned friend' 6 pipes, being counted tip, would be found to be in value consistent with his income. If the properly mentioned in the indictment was found by the jury to be undoubtedly the property of the firms mentioned, the jury would be justified in convicting accused upon that. He submitted that the jury could not come to the conclusion mentioned, because the Crown had failed to prove the property belonged to these firms, not one of its witnesses taking the responsibility of saying he identified the property. That being so. accused was entitled to an acquittal.

His Honor, in summing up, said it was not necessary for the Crown to show that all the.se goods produced were stolen. To justify a conviction it was only necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that some of them were stolen, and that no reasonable account could be given by accused as to how he came by them. The jury mu«t be satisfied the property was stolon before they could call upon accused to give an account of) it. If they were satisfied the property was stolen, and there was not a reasonable account of it forthcoming, they must convict ; if fchpy were not satisfied that the property tad been stolen accused was entitled to an acquittal.

The jury retired at 2.20, and returned in 15 minutes wifch a verdict of "Not guilty," accused being thereupon discharged. M'DONALD AND MOSES SENTENCED.

Thomas Moses and James M'Donald, in respect to whom sentence had been deferred, were brought before the court for sentence. Both had pleaded guilty to the count of receiving on rhe joint charge of having on March 9 broken and entered the D.I.C. warehouse and stolen certain articles. Moses had been found guilty by a jury of receiving in respect to the oharge of having about January 14- last broken and entered the D.I.C. and stolen certain articles ; and M'Donald had pleaded guilty to receiving in respect to a oharge of in September last breaking and entering the warehouse of Ahlfeld Bro3. and stealing therefrom certain articles.

Mr Sim appeared for M 'Donald and Mr Hanlon for Moses.

His Honor: I want to know something about these men — something about their previous career. What is known about Moses?

The Crown Prosecutor : With respect to Moses, there are two convictions recorded against him — one on December 20. 1890. for theft from a dwelling, for which h,e reoeived a sentence of three months' probation ; and the other, five years afterwards, on March 12, 1895, when, on a charge of shop-breaking, he was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. As to his subsequent career, he served in one of the contingents in the South African war, and on his return was drafted into tho Permanent Artillery. He then applied for admission to the police.

Mr Sim : He waa two years in the Permanent Artillery, and got a good conduct discharge.

The Crown Prosecutor : He was two years in tho Permanent Artillery, and was reported upon then for admission to the police. The report was, as usual, made by a police officer, and it did not disclose his identity as having committed the c c previous offences. Hk identity was not recognised.

Mr Sim: They were regaided as so trivial.

The Crown Prosecutor : I am officially informed it was not known, otherwise he would not have been admitted to tho force. There is nothing to be said as to tho prisoners' characters — if they were bad characters they would not be in the foroa. Still, the Commissioner of Police has been placed in possession of certain facts, since the prisoners were convicted. I have now in"~nry hand a full statement of his information in connection with these cases. His Honor: Where did he get it from?

The Crown Prosecutor: I am not instructed. It was obtained since the convioUon of the prisoners*

Mr Sim : My friend has no right to disclose

The Crown Prosecutor : 1 am not giving any information away. His own statement is that he is satisfied beyond doubt that he has reached the foundation of this business. He is satisfied as to the period over which the thefts were carried on, the nature of the property stolen, the part taken by the prisoners, when the thefts wore committed, and how entrance was effected. His Honor: And about M'Donald? The Crown Prosecutor: Nothing- is known.

His Honor: What is his history? The Crown Prosecutor: He has been seven years and a-half in the force, and, of course, has borne a good character. His Honor : It is satisfactory to know that the Commiss-'onor of Police — apart altogether from sentence to be passed — should have got to what he considers the bottom of tho matter.

Tho Crown Prosecutor : Ho has done so ; he knows the whole details now. All the stolen property has not been recovered.

His Honor (addressing the prisoners) : Both of you have pleaded ''Guilty" to receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen, and you, Moses, on another indictment have been further convicted of the same offence. That offence, in my opinion, especially in the case of a police constable, is really more serious than the offence of stealing, because it means that the police constable, who is employed to enforce the law, has not only broken the law himself, but has encouraged other people to break it. You. Moses, as I have said, have pleaded "Guilty" on one indictment, and have been convicted on another, and your record is not altogether clean. The sentence of the court is that you will be imprisoned for a term of five years, with hard labour ; and that you, M'Donald, be imprisoned for four yeai-s, with hard labour.

His Honoi-j in reply to a point rais_ed by Mr Hanlon, said he had overlooked tiie fact that there was another indictment against M'Donald to which he had pleaded " Guilty," but that would not affect the sentence pas*ed. The sentences were conourrent.

OSBORNE SENTENCED.

Oliver Henry Osborne, in respect to whom sentence had bsen deferred, was then brought up for sentence. He had pleaded " Guilty " to a oharge of on or about December last, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the shop of Messrs Kilroy and Sutherland, and stealing certain goods, and a jury had found him " Guilty " on the count of receiving. On a second charge he had pleaded " Guilty " to receiving certain goods, the owner being unnamed ; and on a third charge he had pleaded " Guilty to reociving in respect to a charge of, on or about the year 1904-, at Dunedin, breaking and entering the shop of James Walla-oe, and stealing therefrom certain articles.

The accused, who gave his age as 29, was represented by Mr Hay.

Mr Hay submitted that the accused was' entitled to some leniency. In the first place, the jury hed brought in a recommcndalion to mercy, and, in the next place, it appeared from the character and., amount of goods found iii the accused's possession he was not very deeply implicated in the affair. Furthermore, according to the detectives' evidence, the accused was more fool than knave. The goods did not exceed £2 or £3 in value.

His Honor: What is known against him? We had the detectives' view before.

The Crown Prosecutor: That is not the view the authorities hold now. It is entirely alteicd.

Mr Hay: I would like to know where the police got this information from. Probably from a confession - of one of the others.

Mr Faser: I don't say where it comes from.

Mr Hay: He was only in the police force a couple of years. He came from the country. His Honor: Is he a married man? Mr Hay: He has a wife and three ehiJdrni.

His Honor said : From the evidence given by Chief-detective Herbert as to accused's character, and from the quantity of the goods found in accused's possession, I should think it improbable that he would have been the leader in this transaction, although thee is quite sufficient to justify the conclusion that he was a consenting party, and that he took an active part in what was going on. It is very difficult to discriminate between the guilt of any of the accused. Moses had a previous record. That, of course, is against him, but so far as this prisoner is concerned the only thing that can be said in his favour is that a small quantity of goods was found in his possession, and that from the evidence given by -the detective it is not liloely he was a leading spirit in the transaction. The jury aleo recommend him to mercy. It is impossible, however, to pass tho matter over lightly, and treat it as if he was a fool and acted under the compulsion and direction of others. The sentence of the Court is that the accused be imprisoned to a term of three years and kept to hard labour. The court rose at 3.15 p.m. '