CHARGE OF ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3336, 20 February 1918, Page 43

CHARGE OF ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.

At the criminal sittings of the Supremo Court at Dunedin on the 13th inst., before his Honor Mr Justice Sim, Donald Henry Campbell and John Healey were charged with, on January 8, at 'Dunedin, robbing Robert Price Wilson of tho sum of £24 8s and using personal violence to him. —Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr W. O. Maegregor, K.C.) said the prosecutor was a labourer, who worked a good deal in the country, and came to town occasionally. Ho had been* working at Mr Telford's, near Waiwera, from whom he received a cheque for £2O 8s for wool-pressing work. In addition, he had previously received from another employer a sum of £l2. When he came to Dunedin on January 7 he stayed at tho Gladstone Hotol. On the following day ho went round the town, drinking occasionallv with mates, including the two accused. He had known Campbell for years. He left tho Gladstone Hotel about 9oclocic in the evening. He had undoubtedly been drinking, but was sober enough to know what ho was doing. When he left tho hotel he had a purse in his trousers pocket, containing tho cheque and four single notes. At the end of the Arcade he met Campbell, who went up to him and said, " Como here, you little ." At tho same time Campbell caught hold of him and forced his head back, while Healey went through his pockets and removed his purse. Campbell and Healey then went through the Arcade. Complainant returned to the hotel, but there was no one there, and he then went down the street and made a complaint to Constable Hart. It was then about a quarter to 10. Tho assault was witnessed by Mr and Mrs Reilly, who kept a boarding-house in the locality. Mr Reilly knew the three men. Ho did not know a robbery was taking place. It seemed to him the men were having a bit of sport. Mrs Reilly also saw the men sky-larking. In consequence of inquiries, the two laccused were accosted by Detective Hammerly about 5 o'clock next day in Princes street. Campbell told tho detective that he had been to the pictures on the previous night, and that he then got drunk and had slept 'out all night. Healey corroborated this story. Tho cheque had disappeared. It had never been presented, and the prosecutor had received another cheque from Mr Telford. The four single notes had not been found. In many cases of this kind the man robbed was too drunk to identify any men who assaulted him, but in this case Wikon was not too drunk to know what he wa3 doing, and had recognised the two accused as the men who had assaulted and robbed him. He was sober enough to give information to the police and to give an intelligent account of what had happened.

Evidence was_ given by the complainant. By Mr Irwin: He had given a man named Livingston a pound. He did not know anything of Livingston's convictions. He had known Campbell a long while. Witness had himself been convicted for drunkenness, but not for anything else. On the day the robbery he was about town in the morning, and again in the evening, He returned to the Gladstone Hotel about 4 o'clock, but Mr Collim would not give him any drink, as he had had enough. After tea, he lay down in his room, and went to sleep. He did not call out when Campbell got him by the throat. When a man was caught by the throat he could not call out. He was knocked stupid by the attack. He missed his purse at once, and when he saw,Campbell and Healey Walking away he "said to them, "Now you've got it, it is no good to you." He could not say how much liquor he had had, nor how many friends he met during the day. In the lower court ho did not say, '" I did not lose anything while the scuffling was taking place." What he said was, "I did not lose_ anything else." Peter Reilly (boarding-house keeper) said he saw the ecuffle. Apart from what Wilson had told him, and apart from the fact that he knew the men had been drinking with Wilson, during the he would not swear that the two were the men who wero with Wilson at the time of the scuffle.

• Evidence was also given by Mrs Reilly, Constable Hart, and Detective Hammerly. Mr Irwin did not call evidence. Addressing the jury, he said that before the aocuscd could be found guilty of the charge the jury muot be satisfied with two that the accused were the men who were with Wilson and assaulted him, and that the man was robbed of the money. The story of the informant, however, was not corroborated in any particular. Informant wasvery hazy about where ho was and about whom he met, and there was nothing to show that he had the money on him when he left the hotel at 9 o'clock. He might have lost it before that hour. He apparently got into a muddled state in the afternoon, and really did not know what he was doing—at any rate, he seemed to be- going pretty strong when he returned to the hotel at 4 o'clock. The witness Reilly did not corroborate the informant's story. On the, morning following the assault Reilly was told by "Wilson that the two accused had robbed him, and as Reilly had seen the men together during the day he concluded, when he saw the scuffle, that the two men with Wilson were the accused, and he went into the box in the lower court and said more than ho should have said. The only evidence against the accused was that of the prosecutor. « • • His Honor summed up, and t\Te jury retired at 2.30 p.m. At 4- p.m. they Returned to ask what the position was in the event of the jury agreeing that there was not sufficient evidence' to show that .the informant had his purse on him when ho left tho Gladstone Hotel at 9 p.m His Honor said the man's evidence was that he had the purse at that time, though it was possible ho" might have lost it or that it had been stolen from him earlier. If the jury wero satisfied that tho man did not have the purse on him at the time they might convict the accused of an attempt to rob.

The jury again retired, and in a few minutes returned with a verdict of guilty of attempted robbery. In reply to his Honor, the Grown Prosecutor said that there was a. long list of convictions against Healoy, ranging from 1909 to 1916. Both the accused admitted the correctness of tho official list. His Honor: Looking at the circumstances nnd tho record of both accused, I think it, is a case in which the maximum penalty should be imposed. They will be each sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. This closed the criminal business of the court.