SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3765, 11 May 1926, Page 15

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. ' (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced on Tesday before his Honor Mr Justice Sim. The following Grand Jury was empanelledMessrs Wm. Anderson, Joseph Boothroyd, Charles Joshua Martin, James Fawns Mollison, Geo. Wm. Eowron, Richard Hudson, Keith Stuart Ramsay, Wm. Neill, Geo. Nicholas Mclntosh, Solon De Beer, Howard Lambert Dolamore, Arthur Ellis, James Mclntosh, Hugh Neill. Henry Walter Gamble, Alfred Joseph Hunter Gregory, T. Sinton ’lammond, Andrew Hamilton Stobo Fairinaid, Hercules Henderson, Wm. J. P. McCulloch, Roberr Brain, Robert Bruce, and Samuel Bowman. Mr K. S. Ramsay was chosen foreman. ADDRESS TO GRAND JURY. His Honor, in addressing the Grand Jury, said that the calendar on this occasion comprised six cases, involving charges against five persons. The most serious charge was one in which a man named James Patrick Reid was charged with attempting to murder a man named George Edward Adams on March (i. The two men were working together on a flaxinill at Makarora,. at the head of Lake Wanaka. The evidence of Adams in the lower court was that the two of them had attended a cricket match at Makarora on March G. There was a quantity of beer on the ground, and they had a few drinks. They left for the flaxmill in the evening, riding double-banked on a bicycle. Reid wa? sitting on the bar, and they had fallen off several times. Ilis Honor quoted the evidence of Adams. It stated that Reid had attacked him on the ride back, and that he had pursued the quarrel when they had reached the flaxmill. Later in the evening the accused had come to Adams’s hut, and had again attempted to strike him. In a struggle Adams had found he had been stabbed in the left side. He thought that on that evidence the Grand Jury would have no difficulty in deciding that a true bill should be found against the accused of attempting to murder Adams. Then a man named John Chettle Fnliner, a bootmaker with a shop in King Edward street, was charged with committing assaults on three little girls on February 28 last. The girls, aged respectively seven and a-half, six, and five and a-half. Jin* gone into the shop, and on their evidence the Grand. Jury should have no difficulty in bringing in a true bill against the accused. Walter Goodman was called on to answer A charge of carrying on business as a bookmaker. It appeared from the depositions that on February 12 last a detective had seen the accused in the Gridiron Hotel, and had observed him busily engaged making bets with a number of persons. The Grand Jury ought not to have any difficulty in finding a true bill against the accused. There were charges against two men, Sidney Harris and George M’Kay Polwarth. There were two charges against the two of them, and, in addition, a separate charge against Harris. The two of them were charged with robbing Thomas Ramsay of a wristlet watch and a silk handkerchief. Ramsay was a clerk with Messrs Rattray and Son, and had returned to the office at night. He had been surrounded by six men, had been knocked down, and the theft had been committed. Ramsay was unable to identify all the men, but he could identify Harris and Polwarth as having b.ien among the six men. Then the two accused were charged with stealing a sum of £6 11b 9d and a packet of tram tickets from the cashbox of a corporation bus. The bus had been standing outside the Exhibition at 11.45 p.m., and the driver had gone into the Exhibition for a little while. Two boys would give evidence to show that the two accused had entered the bus, and were striking matches and looking under the seats. A constable had found the cashbox. and, with the evidence to be adduced the Grand Jury would probably think it was sufficient, at any rate, to put the accused on their trial. The last charge was against Harris—of stealing a fur coat from a stall at the Exhibition. The evidence of the stallholder (Mrs Hanson) stated that she had left her fur coat in the stall, and that her brother (Mr Hannah) had drawn her attention to two men going away with the coat. The men had been followed, and Hannah had seen one of them throw something behind a studio This turned out to he the fur coat. The man had been spoken to, and he denied throwing anything behind the studio. A constable had come along, and he would identify Harris as the man whom Hannah was speaking to at the time. The Grand Jury must be satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out. It was not for them to say whether the accused was innocent or guilty. True bills were returned in connection with all the cases.

PRISONERS SENTENCED. The following prisoners, who had pleaded guilty in the lower court, were brought up for sentence: — BREAKING, ENTERING, AND THEFT. William Patrick Guilford, who had pleaded guilty to breaking, entering, and theft, w- ’.placed in the dock. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for the prisoner, said he was 30 years of age, and was married. He was residing with his wife and three young children at Deborah Bay, Port Chalmers. The accused was born in Wellington, and lived there until the war broke out, after which he went away with the forces. Later lie returned to his home suffering from a gunshot wound in the left arm and injuries to his head. He was granted a permanent pension of £45 per annum. Later he went to live on a soldiers' farm in the North Island, where he remained for two years and a-half. He had a desperate struggle to make ends meet, and eventually had to abandon the farm. He then came to Port Chalmers, and had lived there ever since. During his residence at the Port his conduct had been most excellent. He had been working on the waterfront, but he had a hard struggle to make a living. In fact, since his return from the war hfe Ufa had been one continuous struggle. His Honor would Bee that there was one pre-

vious conviction against the prisoner. This was the result of a drum.cn in which two others were involved. The three accused were convicted of stealing fowls, each of them being convicted and fined £2 and costs. So far as the present offence was concerned, it was also the result of drink. He had apparently gone to Port Chalmers from his home at Deborah Bay in the eve.ing to bring home some liquor. He secured the liquor and drank a portion of it, and then attached the parcel to his bicycle. He had to pass the complainant's store, and broke into it. Counsel understood that he remained in the store a considerable time, for he had smoked a whole packet of cigarettes. This indicated that lie did not know what he was doing. After the theft prisoner's house was searched, and nothing of an incriminating nature was found. In view of all these circumstances and also of the laet that his wife was in bad health, he would appeal to his Honor to give the prisoner a chance. The Probation Officer (Mr F. G. Cumming) handed in a report to his Honor. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) said he had nothing to add to the police report. In answer to his Honor, Mr White, after consulting with his client, said a prohibition order had been taken out against the prisoner in September and was consequently still in force. His Honor said the probation officer had recommended a period of proliation, and lie was prepared to adopt that recommendation. The prisoner would be released on probation for a period of three years, the conditions being that he abstained from the use of alcoholic liquor during that period; that he renewed the prohibition order from time to time; that the work which he undertook be approved by the probation officer; that the probation officer be kept fully advised of the man’s earnings; tha* lie make restitution of £1 7s 6d. balance of stolen money not recovered; and that he paid the cost of repairing a window of the house into which lie had broken. He would also be required to pay the costs of tha/prosecution, amounting to £2 3s lOd. Three months would be allowed in which to find the money. A SERIES OF THEFTS.

Stuart Brooklyn Reid, who had pleaded guilty to breaking Post Office letter boxes (two charges), theft of postal packets (three charges), and forgery (two charges), was brought up for sentence. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for the prisoner, said the case was a particularly sad one. It was the case of a brilliant scholastic career being terminated by criminal offences. The prisoner had celebrated his twentieth birthday in prison His family had lived ir> Dunedin up to 1919, when they removed to Dannevirke, where the prisoner received an appointment as a school teacher. He was then tlie youngest school teacher in the North Island. Counsel had letters which testified to the excellent character which prisoner had while engaged in teaching the North Island. In 1924 the prisoner had entered the Dunedin Training College, and there got in with a fast set and began to play the fool. His conduct became so unsatisfactory and the neglect of his studies so great that the principal of the college asked him to resign. The prisoner then went to live with an uncle in Dunedin, his parents being still in the North Island. He was compelled to accept any work which of>m« his way. He later resumed school teaching at Heriot. This lasted for only a few weeks, the holidays intervening. The prisoner returned to Dunedin and got a position with a magazine company, and part of his duty was to clear a Post Office letter box which tins company rented. He noted the flimsy character of these boxes and that the locks could be easily broken. It was after this that he broke into the letter boxes and extracted packets containing money. He had apparently tired of his career of crime and was anxious to return to his parents. This money was taken to pay his way to the North Island. His Honor: You do not suggest that it required £36 to pay the prisoner’s fare to the North Island. It is surely very absurd to suggest such a thing. Mr White, continuing, said he had debts owing. - Mr Adams said the prisoner bought clothing with part of the money stolen. Mr White said he had been in the North Island about seven weeks before a detective arrived from Dunedin to inquire into the charges to which prisoner had pleaded guilty. He had then obtained a position as school teacher, and was so engaged arrested. Ilis Honor said it was a good job that he was arrested then. He was a most undesirable person to teach children. Mr White appealed to his Honor to extend, if possible, tue benefits of the Probation Act to the prisoner. He asked his Honor to take into consideration the prisoner’s extreme youth when he returned to Dunedin. His father had been in Dunedin most of the time since the offences were committed, and his mother was still here. His Honor said that according to the polico reports the accused was guilty of other offences The Probation-officer said in his report that he admitted these. lie had among other things stolen seven letters addressed to students at the Otago University. He did not think this was a case where he would he iustified in extending the provisions of the Probation Act to the prisoner. It was in his Honors opinion a case for reformative treatment.. He would order that prisoners be detained tor reformative treatment for a period ot three years. FIVE YEARS’ DETENTION. Arthur Angove and Robert Thomas Beveridge wore jointly charged with breaking. entering and theft (three chargee); Robert Thomas Beveridge with breaking, entering and theft (one charge) and Arthur Angove with theft (one charge). The prisoners, who were not represented by counsel, both had nothing to say. Mr Adams said both men had criminal records. His Honor said it looked ns if they had qualified as habitual criminals. It appeared that they had no sooner got out of gaol than they committed further offences. He could not understand a magistrate giving men like these one month’s imprisonment. lie would order that both men bo detained for refownative purposes for a term of five years. The sittings were continued on Wednesday.

Court ou Wednesday morning and afternoon. STORY OF A FUR OOAT. Sidney Harris was charged with, on February 20 last, stealing a fur coat valued at £lB, the property of Elizabeth May Hanson, and further with receiving this coat knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. After his name had been called several times the constable reported, “No appearance, your Honor l” Uis Honor was making inquiries from the Crown Prosecutor when it was reported that accused was coming in at the door. “He ought to have been here,” said his Honor.”

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr F, B. Adams, explained to the jury that the charge comprised two counts, both referring to the same happenings. There were two men about, and the jury might come to the conclusion that the other man stole the coat and gave it to the accused. That was the only reason for putting the second count in the indictment. This case arose out of something that occurred at the Exhibition, and he thought it was the only criminal charge that had come to that court in connection with the Exhibition. Mrs Hanson, the owner of the coat, was having a cup of tea in the back part of her stall, when she saw two men leaving the stall, one of whom was carrying her fur coat. It was impossible in the circumstances to expect to identify either of the men. Her brother, David Hannah, heard footsteps, and first drew her attention to a man who was just leaving. He followed the man and afterwards saw him throw something down. He went to the man whom he saw throw this thing down and that man was the accused. Hie fur coat was found immediately afterwards at the spot where something was thrown down. Hie accused had obviously had the coat in his possession and -the only two possible inferences were that he either stole it or received it from his companion who did. The accused could he definitely identified as the man who threw a bundle down at the back of the photographic studio. The coat was at once picked up there and the evidence was plain If the evidence satisfied the jury that the accused either stole the coat or received it from another man within a few minutes of the theft then they were "bound to convict him. If there were any reasonable genuine doubt such as they would recognise in the ordinary affairs of life, then of course thev would give the accused the benefit of it. Elizabeth May Hanson, until a day or two ago a stallholder at the Exhibition, said she had been in cliarsre of a box ball and dart game opposite the “Caterpillar.” On the evening of February 20 she was standing having a cup of tea after the sta'l liad closed. Her brother said “Is thaf your coat lying there?” She said “Yes.” lie said “Give me m> hat!” and ran. She saw one man just on the edge of the tent and one outside. Her coat was on the arm of one of the men as they walked away. She could not identify the men in any way. Her brother and her husband ran after the men. She went out and heard either her husband or her brother whistle. She found her husband, her brother, and two others in a group “arguing the point.” A constable came on the scene a second later. Her husband then had the coat. The coat cost £37 new, and she valued it at £l7 or £lB. To Mr Neill: Her husband did not go with her brother, but a little while afterwards. When asked to flash a torch on the men the constable said*‘T already know them.” David Hannah, brother of the previous witness, said lie had been connected with her stall at the Exhibition. On the evening in question after the lights in the Amusements Park were out, he was in the stall. He heard footsteps, and saw a man disappearing behind the side wall of the marble liar. Ilis Honor: Speak up, Mr Hannah. For a showman yon seem to have a very low way of speaking. Continuing, witness said he saw a man just leaving their stall with a bundle on his arm. His Honor: You said in the lower court that it was n fur coat he had? Witness: Naturally I would say ft was a fur coat. 1 would not be able to swear that. His Honor: You did swear that in the lower court. I« tint true or not true? Witness: It is true. His Honor- Then why do you shuffle about it? Why don’t yon say so at once’ Continuing, witness said lie came up with the man about 50 yards away behind the studio. lie could not swear it was the same man he saw in the stall. lie threw something behind the studio. Witness asked him what lie had thrown away, and the accused said “Nothing.” Witness whistled, and Mr Hanson came up. Witness asked him to see what had been thrown away, and Mr Hanson came back with the fur coat. The man denied that he had anything to do with it. There was another stranger there, and a constable and Mrs Hanson came lip. Witness could not identify either of the strangers. To Mr Neill: He lost sight of the man after he left the stall. He could not say whether the man at the studio was the man he had seen leaving the stall. lie could not identify the man he saw throwing something away. Constable Leslie Nicol gave evidence as to seeing three men in an argument about 20 minutes past 11 on the night in question. The last witness called him over. The three in were Hannah, Harris and a man named Polwarth. Hannah accused the men of having stolen a fur coat and thrown it down. David Hannah said he had observed Harris pick the coat up off th« stall, jn*n another man and wall: away with him Hnrri« said he never saw the coat nnd had nothing to do with it. Hannah said lie saw Hurris throw the coat awhy. Harris refused to give his name nnd address Polwarth said his name was “Mickv; Walker,” nnd that he lived in Ponsonhy rond. Auckland. Tho«e men should have been out of the Exhibition by that. time. Hannah asked him to flash the light on Htfrris’s face hut lie did not do so. His Honor: Why did you not do it? Witness: No particular reason. His Honor : Owing to your failure to do that the witnesses have been unable to identify the man v Witness: I could Ree his face, and the others could have done so. “Don’t you see. persisted his Honor, “whnt n stupid thing it was not to flash the light?” Witness: Oh, yes! He said he wont on with the accused and Polwarth towards the main gate and could soe them plainly by the lights. The accused was arrested by witness about 1.30 a.m. the following

morning on another charge altogether. Polwarth was with accused thtf*. To Mr Neill; He did not arrest the accused because he did not witness the actual theft. Complaintant and the others with him said that as they had recovered the coat undamaged they were not prepared to accompany him to the polied station and sign a charge sheet. His Honor: You don’t suggest in the circumstances do you, Mr Neill, that it was the constable’s duty to arrest the man? Mr Neill: Well, sir, the witnesses have told a very full story. His Honor: But they were not prepared to accompany him to the police station and sign a charge against the man. They might have left him in the lurch very badly. Mr Neill, in addressing the jury, said that suspicious circumstances were not sufficient. They could not from the evidence arrive at the conclusion that this man stole the coat. He drew attention to discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence. Hannah could not identify the man who took the coat or the man who threw the co«t away. There could not have been sufficient light at the time or the witnesses would been able to identify the accused. What evidence wa« there that this man either took or received the coat. He subrm’tted the man was entitled to a verdict of not guilty.

His Honor summing up. said it seemed to him that if the accused was to he convicted at all he ought to be, convicted on the first count. Tt seemed quite clear from the evidence that the coat was taken away from the stall and that it was found by Mr Hanson behind the photographic studio and was produced in the presence of the two men when the constable was there. The whole question depended on the identification of the accused which depended entirely on the evidence of Constable Nicol. If two men were outside Mrs Hanson’s stall and one of them grabbed the coat and the two made off together they were both guilty of theft. If they were in concept when one of them took the coat away it did not matter which of them took it. They were both guilty of theft. There was no doubt that. Mr Hannah lost sight of the man for a time, but he saw what appeared to be the same man later He saw that man throw something behind the studio, where Mr Hanson found the coat. If they accepted his evidence could they have any reasonable doubt that the man that Hannah came up to and spoke to was the man w hom he had seen shortly before taking the coat out of Mr Hanson*? stall ? Could they, as reasonable men, have the least doubt in the world that it was the same man? It was a piece of stupidity on the part of the con I stable not to fla-li the light on the man’sl face, but the constable had no doubt at all) that the accused was the man to whom Hannah and Hanson were speaking. If they accepted the evidence about taking the coat away then the case was proved clearly to a demonstration. Of course, if they did not accept the evidence there was an end of it. Tq say there was no evidence agains the accused was simply to ignore the sworr testimony of the Crown. 4f they accepts the evidence they would convict the accusei on the first count

The jury retired at 11.40 a.m. and re turned a quaiter of an hour later with verdict of “Not guilty.” The accused was discharged. CHARGES OF INDECENT ASSAULT. John Chettlf Palmer appeared to answe three charges of indecent assault coinmittei on February 25 on three girls aged seven six, and five years. In each case there wer< counts both of indecent assault and of com) rr.on assault. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr White appeared on his behalf. His Honor in response to the Crown Prosecutor, said he had no doubt the newspapers would be good enough not to publi-n the names of the girls. . The Crown Prosecutor drew the attention of the jury to the six counts, arranged if three pairs The evidence, if they accept J it, he said, would establish an indecent assault in each of the three ca-cs, end: there would be no need to consider the other counts. The accused was a bootmaker in South Dunedin, having hitherto apparently led a respectable life. The Crown Prosecutor read the statement made by the accused to the police. He stated he was u married man with a family. He remembered several little girls coming about his shop after school on February 25. One came to get a strap fixed on her shoe. There was only one room in the shop with a counter. He lifted the seven-year-olu girl on to his knee and examined her bad foot. He denied that the other two girls were sitting on his knee. The elder girl after going away soon returned with Is 6d that was owing from her mother, and immediately went away. Continuing, the Crown Prosecutor said that the evidence of two of the three little girls mentioned in the information would be called, and also the evidence two other little girls who v ere there. Though the accused denied having the other two girls on his knee, there was much evidence that all three girls were on his knee. The youngest of the three gi-ls would not be giving evidence on account of her tender years The mother of the seven-year-old girl said her daughter was lame. Owing to ec-me-thing she heard she spoke to her .-.in ghter t*'e day after the alleged assault .Early the following week the accused spoke to her, asking why she had made this charge against him, and saying he would have explained everything. To Mr White: The accused had spoken to witness about getting a hoot fji her girl some time before Christmas. The accused after the alleged assault said lo was very sorry for the child and wanted lo get n hoot to suit her. Witness’s little daughter, who was the next witness, was overcome with the dignity of the court, and gave way to sobbing for a time before her mother could pacify her. She gave evidence as to what tr»o r.u used had done to her in his shop, nnd said that several other little girls had been on his knee. The next little girl, six years old, was much more composed! She told of ’ v hat accused did to the previous witness and m herself. lie also behaved improperly ft three other little girls. To Mr White: They had all been playinfl in Palmer's shop and making a good deal of noise. Palmer cleared them all out.l Some of her little companions told her later what Palmer had done. Another little girl said she hed been fi the shop with two of the other girls, fat? saw one of them sitting on the accused's knee. The Crown Prosecutor failed to get evidence from the next witness—a small child —and give up the task as hopeless. The

f' flowing child witness also broke down r-id was unable to give evidence. Detective Nuttall said he had seen (ha # reused on March 2 in company with Det n tive Russell. Witness informed the accused of the complaints which had been made against him, 'lhe accused had come to the poliqr station a little later, and made a statement On the following dav in company with Detective Russell, witness went again to the accused’s shop, and told him he had a warrant for his arresi. The accused replied “This is .what you get for doing a woman’s child a good . turn. W itness said he had interviewed the girl s separately. Ibis closed the ease for the*Crown. Ihe accused went into the witness I>ot. ( He said he was a married man with a family of eight. He had had a conversation with the mother of one of the littfagirls in connection with the mending of a shoe for the child. The conversation toolc I place in the shop. The shoe was- a peculiar .shane. and the mother said the girl had had infantile paralysis. This \vonl4 he a fortninght before the da*« on which he. was xbarged. At about half-past. thre© . bn February 25. *ome fi”e or six children came into'the shop.' The ehildrpn wero play in? about. He saw the lame child, and l-n*w it we« thf* same eirl for whom lia hod mended the t-rot. Ho picked her up end fut her on bis knpn to examine foot. lU I . had none of the other children cn hi< knee. He had no occasion to nut anv of th« Othe-s r-n his l-no.. Tim children were makin~ a po : se a-'l ho told them Jo tret out. No one standing on the floors*cn could <sep what was on in the shoo. There was a window shout 9Sb square Between shop and the cononoted dwcHina. •••*»« |, v-»c occupied hv- Mr Vernon. Fait of the window wa« covered with an 'dmnnack hut •> «••»« qiG»« ro-G.hie r or the Vernons to c e'' into the shoo When ho heard what was he : ng sa*d about him celled on the rnoti>«!’3 rvf two of thochildren. Om of. P-m fr-M him h« had got lumself into trouble *od he e o uld get out of it the best way he could. Cross-examined. Witness said no arrangement had been made for him to make -a hoot for a lame child. I here was not a. great deal of difference between the of the window in his shop and the size of the almanac. lie could not say why the girls should have made the accusation against him unless they -were jealous or tutored Ilis Honor: Tutored bv whom—the police or the mothers? The Accused: The mothers. His Honor: Then you make a charge of wholesale c-on>piracy-against the mothers of these girls? The Accused: Exactly. His Honor: Tint is your noinion. You ask the jury to believe that? The Accused added tliat tt'.e children were often in his shop Henry Vernon, railway employee, said he occupied tile dwelling pan of me premise:! connected with the accused's shop. 1 hero was a window 2ft square looking into the shop from witness’s dwelling. A calendar was hung over the window hv a nail. There was a space on each side of the calandar and also underneath. The window could be looked through. The room in his house with the window in it was the kitchen. 1 hey had an unrestricted view of the shop from the kitchen. lie remembered the Thursday before the accused was arrested. lie left work at 2 p.m. .Ho was haring his dmnei when he heard the chi hi rou in the shop making so mtiJi noise that he sent hi.- little girl around to ask the accused to .send them away. He h*d looked through (he window to see how manv children were there. There wero five children there He saw no cliild»«t ou the accused’s knee. Ilis Honor: lie could have had children on his knee? Witness: It was quite possible. His Honor: The accused says he did have a child on his knee. . Gross-examined: lie was - locking Uirough the window practically all the time after - he hml sent his little ('if! round to tell the accused to send the children awaj. IBs calendar had been plnreil on the window to obstruct the vie/*, and it had never been shifted. He was sitting . about 2ft from tb . window. lie remembered the date because friends came from the country I lint dav He had not spoken to the. accused aia.nl the case. Uis first connection with the ca*e was when he had cpmniumcalcd with Mr White on the previous day Mr "’bite, in addressing the jury, said the burden of proof rested on the Crown, and if there were any reasonable doubt the accused must receive the benefit ot that doubt. The crave charges against the accused were founded on the evident-, of very young children. Charges of siiiii nature were very easily made, and were very difficult to disprove. The jury must examine the evidence of these yntintt ehildien’ very closely. Counsel claimed that on the evidence it was imnossible to s.v." whnt did take place in the shop. Urn witness Vernon had been called to show that the accused knew that there was in another room a family who could see all that was (join?: on. Vernon was quite an independent witness, and had come voUmtatilv to ttive evidence. lie snbiuittc'l that the accused had pi von an absolutely stiaigbtforwurd statement of what bad taken place. Jt was a very foolish thing for the accused to put a child on ms knee or for any man to do so. Counsel.uni not sav the children lied, but they did not know the result of any statements which they might make. Counsel read len-thv extracts from the evidence ot the children to show how complicatms it was There was no evidence of any complaint immediately after the occurence was alleeed to have taken place. It was some days .after that the ( ul.ildren were questioned, and the reliability of tie children was then open to doubt. 1 accused had gone, after lie heard of .he I complaints, to the mother* of two of the children, the last thing a guilty man would do. The accused had given a 'straight out statement to the police, anil I lad denied on oath in the box that dayhat he was guilty of such crave charge*. Counsel had very considerable doubt whether the jury would be prepared to tend the accttstd to prison on the evidence given by the children that day. His- Honor, ii> summing up. said if they were satisfied that the little girls wero not making any mistakes about the matter, , then it was their duty to find the accused.., U’ltv of indecent assault. It was either indecent assault or nothing at all. Hw Honor reviewed the evidence. He pointed out that there VMS hardly any evidence in which there were not discrepancies*., and i£ juries- were- always to take coe^

nigarw-3 of these discrepancies then it would be impossible ever to secure a conviction. All the criminals who .leaded not guilty would cro free. When the accused was interviewed he admitted he had one of the girls on his knee. What business had he to take the child on his knee to examine her foot? It was a most improper thing to do. . The accused had not been asked by the mother to examine the child's foot. The accused denied that any of the other girls were on his knee, and suggested that the others had been tutored bv their mothers. Was it possible for the mothers to manufacture such evidence, and then get their children to come there and give false evidence? Accused’s counsel lmd made a great deal of the accused goir*g >uto the box, hut the a< used had a perfectly good character, and need not fear that lie might cross-examined on his previous record. The face that a man hail a good chamber dm not help him one wav or the other.

The jury retired at 10 minutes to 4 and returned at a-quarter to 5 with a verdict of not guilty on all counts. ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. George M'Kay Pohvarth and Sidney Harris were charged that, on Tuesday, Februarv 0, at Dunedin, they being together with other persons, did rob Thomas Glendining Ramsay of a wristlet watch and a silk liana, jrchief of a total value of £3 10s, and that thev did use personal violence to Ramsay. They were further charged with stealing a watch and a handkerchief from the said Thomas Glendining Ramsay and further that they did Assault Ramsay. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for PolJTarth and Mr A. G. Neill for Hn is. The Crown Prosecutor said there were three counts in the charge. Ramsay had

been set upon by a number of men, of whom it was alleged the accused were two. As a matter of fact, six men were engaged in the robberv. and it was for the jury to say whether the two accused were among the six. The offence occurred about 10 o’clock on a Tuesday night. Ramsay had gone to the office of Messrs Janies Rattray and Son, where he was emInved. The door was locked, and he could not get in. Then two men came up and spoke to him. After some conversation tour other men came on the scene. Then one of the men snatched the silk handkerchief from Ramsay’s pocket. Ramsay called for assistance, and he was throwu to the ground, and the wristlet watch taken from him. A hand was put over Ramsay’s mouth to stifle his cries. The men then i.loved away towards the corner of Rattray and Crawford streets. Ramsay got up and went across the street to where a Mrs lsitt was standing, and who had seen the robbery committed. Mrs Tsitt went along the street and spoke to Constable White, who came and saw Ramsay. The constable then went along to the Terminus Hotel corner. Three or four men were standing there, and he spoke to them. One of them, whom ho knew to be Harris, said they had been standing there for some considerable time. They said they had seen some sailors going towards the wharf. ’ The constable went back and got Ranißay, but the men were standing in the hotel doorway, and Ramsay could not identify them. John Donald Shea had given evidence in the lower court, but had since left the Dominion. His depositions stated that on the night of the assault Harris had come to the hotel, the door of which was operf, and asked if he could get a couple of bottles of beer, and he had replied “No.” He also saw Polwarth, and said, “You’re getting the beer for him, are you? .Well,

you have no chance at all.” Shea said he then closed the door. Polwarth had come and knocked at the door and said he wanted to see him, but he said he had better come around next day. There were other men standing there too. The Crown Prosecutor said the jury would, therefore, see that both Polwarth and Harris were in the vicinity at the time the assault had taken place. n addition to that, Ramsay nad definitely identified the two accused, Polwarth ar.d Harris, as eing among the six men who had assaulted, him. Ramsay had passed Polwarth on the following Saturday at tue telegraph office and recognised him as one who had assaulted him. Later he had picked out Polwarth and Harris at the police station qs two of the men who had assaulted him. Thomas Glendining Ramsay gave evidence corroborating the statements made by the Crown Prosecutor. He said that Polwarth was the man who had held his hands behind his back while the watch was being taken off him. wa the last man of the six to come along to the office door. Polwarth was one of the first two men who came and spoke to him, He had picked Polwarth and Harris out of 16 men rt the police station. Ho noticed no sign of liquor about the men at the time of the assault.

Cross-examined by Mr Neill, witness said it was a fine night, but overcast. It was not very dark. He would have spent about a couple of minutes talking to Mrs lsitt. They saw the men walking around the corner of Rattray and Crawford streets. He could not describe the first three men who had passed him. He knew Polwarth and Harris, however, because they had both taken hold of him.

The silling* wore continued on Thursday ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. George M'Kay Polwarth and Sidney Harris were charged that, oa Tuesday,

February 9, at Dunedin, they, being together with other persons, did' rob Thomas Glendining Ramsay of a wristlet watch and a ailk handkerchief of a total value of £3 10s and that they did use personal violence to Ramsay. They were further charged with stealing a watch and a handkerchief from the said Thomas Glendining Ramsay and further that they did assault Rumeay. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared* for Polwarth and Mr A. G. Neill for Harris.

The hearing was continued from the previous day, when the evidonco of Ramsay had been taken. Mrs Henrietta lsitt, residing at 22 Stuart street, Dunedin, said she remembered the evening of February 9. She was on the footpath on the opposite side of Messrs Rattray and Son’e premises in Crawford street when she heard a cry for help. She looked across the street and saw five or six men standing round another man who was lying on the footpath. She could not see what they were doing. She could not go among the men with nothing in her hand, so she stooped dow’n to take off her shoe. The men in the meantime hurried towards Rattray street, and went round tho corner in the direction of the wharf. The man on the ground staggered to his feet, and came over to her. He appeared to be very nervous and very excited. He told witness what had happened, and she went and found Constable White, near the fountain. She could not identify any of the men who had been standing together. She had seen some men standine at the Terminus Hotel corner when she left Ramsay to go for a poheeWitness examined bv Mr Neill said that Ramsay got up and was coming towards her as the men were just going round the corner into Rattray street. It wa3 almost opposite Messrs Rattray and Son s premises that Ramsay had met her. Ilis Honor pointed out that Mrs Jsitt had stated that she could not identify any of the men. and the cross-examination regarding how they went round the corner was immaterial. . , . Constable White said lie was on wht duty at the Fountain on February 9. Sirs lsitt came to him about a-nnarter past 10. Witness then went down Rattray street and met Ramsay at the corner of Crawford and Rattray streets. v\.ien .ie WJS speaking to Ramsay he’corn*! see someone standing at the corner at the Terminus Hotel. He went along and saw three men standing at the bar door. He asked them if they had heard of any disturbance in Crawford street, and they s.aid No. He asked them how long they had been standing there, and they said -or some siderable time. Harris had given him this information. He Knew Lams, Lut he could not identify the others. I hey said in answer to a question, that they had seen several sailors Koing towards the wharf. Witness then went bad: and got Ramsay where he had left mm. they went together past the 'terminus Hotel. Ramsay was on the inside ot the tootpath. The three men were still there Two were in the bar doorway, and the third was ringing the bell at the main door. The men were facing him. The ether man had his hack to him. Harris was at the bar door. This would be about half-past 10 o’clock. Witness went along Cumberland street from Rattray street, but could not see anyone about. Ramsay was unable to identify any of the men at the Terminus Hotel corner. Witness knew Pohvarth now, but he could not sav he was among the men at the corner. Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness said he had taken Ramsay along to see it he could identify the men. . His Honor: Why did not you bring Ramsay face to face with the men? Witness: Well, we passed them at the doorway. Witness said there was a light at the corner of the hotel and one at the corny! of the Triangle. The corner was well lighted. He thought it was light enough for Ramsay to identify these people it he could. Witness had had no trouble in identifying Harris. Witness, l.wever, knew Harris, but Ramsay did not. To Mr Neill: Ramsay had said the men were dressed something like the men who had attacked him, but he coubl not say for certain. Detective Roycroft said he knew both the accused and he saw them on February 22 at the Police Station at 9 a.m. They were lined up with 14 others in the police, yard. All the others were dressed in ordinary clothes as were the accused. The men were shown to Ramsay, who identified the accused without hesitation. Witness then charged the accused. Polwarth made no reply to Ramsay’s identification. Mr Hanlon, addressing the jury, said that the accused were charged with offences. He said that if the jury believed Ramsay, who was the principal witness for the Crown, they must bring in a verdict of guilty of robbery with violence. If they could not believe Ramsay, the Crown had no case. The first count was the most serious. The legislation had provided most severe penalties for offenders. They need only centre their attention on the first count. If Ramsay had told the truth the accused were guilty. The whole case depended on the question of identification. Somebody had undoubtedly assaulted Ramsay. There had been half a dozen assailants, and the jurymen had to satisfy themselves that the accused were of that number. The only evidence was that of identification by Ramsay, whose statements could not be corroborated. No one else could say who it was Was it likely, he asked, that if the accused were guilty, they would have remained in the vicinity. The accused had been accosted at the Terminus Hotel, and had made no attempt to decamp. When tho constable returned after going for Ramsay, the men were still there, and Ramsay, when confronted with the accused, had been unable to identify them a 9 some of his assailants. All he could say was that those who had maltreated him were dressed somewhat similarly. Yet when taken to the police station a fortnight later. Ramsay, as the detective had said, had identified the accused—the same men—without any hesitation. Counsel submitted that such identification was not sufficient to convict a man. He scouted the idea that if these men were guilty, they would have remained so near the scene of the assault. He submitted that t.ho Crown had no case at all. There was not a particle of evidence to justify a conviction. Mr Neill, addressing the jury, said he believed Ramsay’s story as to having been assaulted and robbed, but what was there to connect the accused with the crime? The assault was committed ot night under tho street lights, and Ramsay could not identify his assailants in the same light. Yet ho had not hesitated in the police yard. Was it likely that lie could identify

the men any better two weeks later ot the police station?

His Honor, in summing up, said that if the accused were to be convicted at all they certainly ought to be convicted on the first count in the indictment, because it was clear from, the evideifCe of Ramsay that on the night in question he had been set on by a gang of ruffians, who had robbed him of a watch and a silk handkerchief. The only question was whether the two aecused were members of the gang. The question of identification was entirely based on the evidence of Ramsay. His Honor quoted the evidence at length, and said that according to the evidence of the constable, Ramsay certainly did appear to have an opportunity of identifying Harris because Harris was standing on the footpath in the bar doorway facing him. The constable had no difficulty in identifying Harris, Lut Ramsay had failed to do so, and that was a few minutes after the robbery had taken place. The evidence of the then licensee of the hotel showed that both Polwarth and Harris were outside the hotel on the night in question. Apparently it was Polwarth who was ringing the door bell when Ramsay and the constable passed, but Polwarth had his back to them, so that Ramsay really did not have a chance of seeing Polwarth’s face, and his failure to recognise him was not of much significance. It was strange, however, that Ramsay, who had the opportunity of seeing Harris’s face, did not identify .him. Hi view of that failure the jury would have to consider whether it would be safe to act on Ramsay’s subsequent identification of Polwarth and Harris when they were ranged in the police yard. The whole case depended on whether or not they were satisfied that the two men were members of the gang who had attacked and robbed Ramsay on the night of February 9. The jury retired at 12 minutes past 11, and returned at five minutes to 12 with a .verdict of guilty on the first count. The accused were remanded for sentence. THEFT FROM A BUS. Sidney Harris and George M'Kay Polworth were charged with the theft of a cash-box containing £6 11s 9d on February 2U froi* a Dunedin City Corporation motorbus. The accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Polwarth, and Mr A. G. Neill for Harris. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) said the offence took place in front of the main entrance to the Exhibition at 11.45 p.m. The conductor was away from his bus, which he had pulled up at the gates and left for about 10 minutes. Two boys had seen the two men go to the bus and feel round the floor in search of something They struck several matches to assist them in their search. Charles Alfred Lawton Legg said he was in charge of but No. 6 on the night in quest.on. He reached the main entrance to the Exhibition at 11.45 p.m. He took the cash-box. which contained £6 Us 9d, from its accustomed place and put it under tho back seat near the'tool box. He left the bus and switched off the lights. When he returned after about 10 minutes his cashbox was missing. He d;d not see it again until 1.30 a.m. It was empty then, and had been found in the Leith, where the highway bridge crossed the stream. The entrance was in comparative darkness. Aubrey Falmilton said he was 14 years of age He was in front of the Exhibition gates late on the night, of February 20—at about 11.45 p.m. He saw a corporation bus standing at one of the gates. He was seated in a private bus close behind it with another boy. He thought the interior was in darkness. He knew the accused by sight, though he did not know their names. He saw the two men enter the corporation bus, and later noticed them groping round under the seats, and striking matches They were inside the bus for two or three minutes, after which one came out and walked up the highway. Ho thought it was Harris. F.ater Polworlh followed, after having walked round tho bus. Polwartli was carrying a bundle which looked like a cloth. He next saw tho accused in tho Triangle on the Sunday following He went to the police station and identified them from a line of 16 men. There were two ot three buses there at the time of the theft. Cross-examine’ by Mr Hanlon, the wit-

ness said the acused weer in the bus for only a few minutes, and struck several matches. Polworth had the bundle under his .rm. The accused spoke to the boys, and asked if their bus was going soon. Witness said they were not going for a while. He did not mention i the other boy that the accused were in the corporation bus. lighting matches. He said that if he stated in the lower court that the men struck only one match it must be right. He did not think either was wearing a coat. * Too Mr Neill:' I'j said he did uot remember saying that the Exhibition gates were lit up. Two constables came up and spoke to Mr Wilson, the owner of the bus in which witness was seated. He (witness) mentioned to the constables what he had seen. He did not cm ' ?r it strange that the men were striking matches in the bus. Tl.j accused knew witness and his companion were sitting in the bus at the rear of the corporation vehicle. Toe .police spoke to the driver of his bus first, and then came to witness. The accused h:.d no coats on.

Wilfred Rupert Ellens said he was with the previous witness as a passenger in Wilson's bus on the night in .question at about 11.45. There were other buses about. He saw two m enter a corporation bus in front of the one in which ho was sitting. He did not know the men when he saw them, though he was able now to recognise them as the accused. They went straight to the back of the bus and struck some matches, while groping round under the seat. Then they sat down in the front of the bus, later getting out and walking up the Highway. One was carrying a dark cloth. He had picked out Harris from the line of 10 men at the i olice Station, though he could uot identify anyone else. The Exhibition light and the street lights were burning.

Cross-examined by Mr nunion, the witness said that neither of the accused spoke to his companion or hmiself. When the accused got into the corporation bus the other boy said, “Look at .ae men in the corporation bus." He thought about six matches were lit altogether. The men s t down for a while, and left the bus to aether, going up the Highway. One of the men was wearing an overcoat This was Polwarth.

To Mr Neill, he said the bus was lit up inside. The bus driver asked him if he had seen anyone in the bus, to which witness replied that he had seen two men there. No other inquiries were made of them. Constable Dobson said he was on night duty at the Exhibition on the night in question. In consequence of a search he found an empty cash box in the middle of the stream under the bridge of the Highway on the Sunday r irning, shortly after midnight. Constable Nichol said he was on night duty at the Exhibition on February 20. He first saw the two accused at about 20 minutes past 11, in the Amusement Park. He was talking to them there. The two accused went towards the main gate, and he went to the Police Station at the Exhibition. He then went out the main gate to make inquiries regarding a complaint which had been received. He saw the two boys who have giv.j evidence, and rode his bicycle along the Highway to Frederick street. He saw four men standing on the footpath at Frederick street near the intersection of Clyde street. He spoke to the men, and said crime had been committed a short time previously, and that he wanted to question them about it. Two of the men gave him satisfactory answers, but he was not satisfied with the answers given by Polwarth and Harris. Harris said his name was Charlie Mitchell and that he resided at No. 7 Howe street. Witness did not know where Howe street was, nor where Howard street was. When he questioned Harris regarding his name he had told him the nature of the crime. Polwarth said his name was Mickey Walker, that he resided at Ponsonby road. Auckland, and that he was staying at the Occidental Hotel. Witness called the other two men apart and asked them how long they had been in company with Polwarth and Harris. Polwarth and Harris tried to hear the questions he was asking the other men. Witness informed Harris tliat he was not satisfied with his answers, and told him he was going to accompany him home. When they reached the corner of Frederick street and Cumberland street Harris got Polwarth to come with them. They went along Cumberland street, and Harris stopped at Howard street. W itness asked, “Where to now?” and Harris said he was not going to take him any further. Witness said unless Harris took him to his home he would have to come to the police station. Harris said he would not go, and struck him. and he (witness) thereupon arrested him. Polwarth was there, and kept coming close up, but did not put his hands on witness. Harris was searched at the police station, and had £4 6s 4d in his possession—£3 10s in notes, three single half-crowns, one shilling, nine sixpences, 12 threepences, and tour pennies. The accused had informed him, when in Frederick street, that they knew nothing about the robbery. In Frederick street Polwarth had a parcel wrapped in a dark-coloured cloth, Witness felt it, and understood it was a teddy bear. The four men in Frederick street were handling money, and put it out of sight when he approached. Polwarth told him that they had intended pur'chasiug liquor with the money.

Detective Lean said that on February 22, in company with Detective Sneddon, he interviewed Polwarth on the Oreti. He told accused that he and Harris were suspected of the theft. He asked accused to go to the police station for the purpose of identification. jPolwarth came, but he said that he had not seen Harris on the Saturday night, and that he had gone to bed at 10 p.m. Witness lined the two accused up with 14 other men, and they were identified by the boys.

Mr Hanlon said it was for the jury to say whether the Crown had proved its case. The evidence of the bus driver showed that his cash-box had been taken, and the question to be determined was whether one or other or both the accused were implicated in the theft. The two boys said the bus was there before they had reached the spot, and that no one was in it, so that anybody could have taken the money before the boys came along. There was no evidence that the money box was in the bus when the two accused were seen about it. The men had gone into the bus in which the boys were and asked if the bus was going to town, and the boys had said “No,” and the accused had then gone into the bus in front. The accused, apparently, after looking about the bus, sat down in the back of it, and they could therefore have been caught with the box in their possession if they had it. One of the boys said the accused were in the bus 10 or lb minutes, and that nobody came to take the vehicle away, and the accused then got out and walked up the Highway. The two boys’ evidence was contradictory as to what took place. One boy said that the men were speaking to them before they entered the bus. The other boy said they did not, and that they were never nearer than the front of the corporation bus. Then the boys said the accused were lighting matches. One boy said he thought they lit only one match. The other boy said they lit half a dozen matches. They should examine this evidence very closely. If only one match were struck the men could not have been making much of a search. One boy said the accused had walked out of the bus together and up the Highway in company. The other boy said Harris went off Grst. and that afterwurds Polwarth came out, had a look at the bus, and then walked away. If they were thieves were they likely to stay where the robbing took place? One boy said Polwarth had on an overcoat. The other boy said neither had an overcoat. The evidence of the boys was not in accord—there were, indeed, serious discrepancies. There was the evidence that one man, when he came out of the bus, was carrying something, and it was afterwards found to be a teddy bear.' Had it not been found to be a teddy bear lie maintained that it would have been put to the jury that it was the stolen box Polwarth was carrying. • This showed then how little things could tell against a man. Unfortunately for the Crown and fortunately for the accused, it was found to he a squeaking teddy bear. That was the only thing the accused was seen carying, and it would have been difficult for them to carry away anything else without the boys seeing them. Referring to the wrong names given by the accused, counsel said that did not prove they were thieves. When the constable came along at midnight and wanted to know their names they gave false names, because they were apparently endeavouring to purchase drink At midnight. I‘olwaitli had not wanted

to be dragged into any trouble, and had said he had not been out on the Saturday night, but he had shown no reluctance in going to the station and standing in the identification row. Mr Neill, addressing the jury, drew atention to some discrepancies in the evidence given by the boys. One said the lights in the bus were out, the other said they were not. One said the Exhibition lights were on, the other denied it. The money found on the accused Harris was in notes except for 16s 4d in cash. The Crown’s case depended on the boys’ evidence. Council submitted that the accused, knowing that the boys were sitting behind, would not have dared commit the crime. It was not common sense to suggest it. Suspicious circumstances were no evidence of crime.

His Honor, in summing up, said if they accepted the bus driver’s evidence then it was proved that a theft had taken place. It was for the jury to decide whether one or the other of the accused had committed the theft,. There were certainly serious discrepancies in the evidence of the two boys, and it was for the jury to say whether they would bo justified in accepting their evidence. Another important point was that there was nothing to show that the money-box was there when the two men came to the bus. That was another matter for the consideration of the jury The money in the possession of Harris did not tally with the money in the bus moneybox. He understood the money in the box consisted of silver and coppers. The bus driver did not say there were any half crowns in his box. He said the money was in two-shilling pieces, shillings, sixpences, threepences, but no pennies. The jury would have to say what weight could be attached to the fact that the men gave false names, but that did not carry them very far. The jury retired at 5 o’clock, and returned at 6.10 with a verdict of guilty. The prisoners were remanded for sentence CHARGE OF BOOKMAKING. Walter Goodman was charged with, on February 12, carrying on business as a bookmaker. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr r. L». Adams), in opening the case for the Crown, said that the charge preferred against the accused was laid under the Gaining Amendment Act of 1920. As to the evidence required to establish the charge counsel quoted the law. Though the onus of proof was laregly on the Crown, he said, there was an obligation on the part of the defence to dimrove The issue of a double chart was one of the characteristic things of a bookmaker's business. The Crown would thrust the onus on the defence of proving that the accused was not carrying on the business of a bookmaker. All the Crown -ould do was to reveal accused in oue place carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The law had stood on the Statute Book since 1920 and the point was not whether members of the jury approved or disapproved of the statute. It was a question of whether the law had been broken. Detective Bayliss said ti at on February 12 l ist he entered the bar of the Gridiron Hotel at about 3.15 p.m. by means of the front door. He noticed the accused in conversation with another man just inside the bar. He had never seen either of the men before. He watched the two men, and saw the accused hand the other man a double chart. His attention had been called to the men by the loud remarks of the accused to the effect that he was working on a commission ;>f Is ir the pound. As the accused handed "he other man, Thomson, the card he asked if that were any good to him. The reply was in the affirmative, and Thomson then gave the accused a 10s note. The accused yven made an entry in a black note book, wards moving further along the bar to two other men and handing each a double chart. Neither registered a bet with him. He later accosted two more men and supplied each with a chart. He received .nothing in return. The accused then went to another man in the corner of the bar who received a chart, but handed it back, together with something else. Witness asked the accused if he had a card for the next day. The accused produced a card, and witness marked the names of Arpent and Tommy Dodd, who were to race at Wingatui on February 13. He asked for 5s each on Arpent and Tommy Dodd, proffering a £1 note. The accused returned to the bar to change the note. lie gave witness his 10s change, after which witness asked him to come out into the private room, where he told the ac-

cused who he was, and id him what he fiad in his pocket. The accused produced the black note book, which witness seized. When asked to accompany witness to the station the accused returned to the bar. but he came eventually. When about 100 yards from the station accused put his arm round witness’s shoulder, and as witness turned round he saw a piece of screwedup paper on the ground, which he found to be a double chart. The accused was not drunk, but he made no attempt to lower his voice. The accused said his name was Williams, but later he gave his correct name. He said he was working for somebody, but refused to divulge any names.

Cross-examined, witness said he had noticed entries in the black notebook relating to contracting work. The note he gave the accused was not a marked one. He had not gone to the hotel with the intention of catching the accused. The man Thomson accompanied accused and witness to the detective office. Witness made no statement to Thomson to the effect that he would not be prosecuted if he gave evidence. Witness denied having said he was going to make things hot for the accused. David John Gordon Thomson, a teamster, said he was in the Gridiron Hotel on the day in question. He had a few drinks. The accused, whom he had never 6een before, offered him a double chart, which he took, though he told the accused h did not want to take a double. He eventually took a double on Set Sail and Baldowa. He could not recollect what the odds were. The accused wanted him to take another double, but ho would not. He paid the accused a 10s note for the double which he took. The detective was not in the bar when witness entered. He saw the accused accost other men after he had taken witness’s double. Witness heard the detective ask for a card on the next day’s racing, and saw the accused pass one over. The accused took witness's name when the bet was made. Witness

thought he would have an opportunity to collect any dividend at the hotel after the races.

Cross-examined by Mr White, witness said he had been in the bar for about an hour prior to leaving with the detective. He saw the accused speak to three others at least. He might have accosted more than three. It was after the detective had made his bet that the accused said he “did not like the look of the joker.” The detective had told him that if he made a statement he would be safe, from which he gathered that he would be free from prosecution. He saw a solicitor after making a statement, and was told to stand by it. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr White, in addressing the jury, quoted the law regarding the illegality df bookmaking. He said it was refreshng to know that the police were beginning to realise that betting with bookmakers was rife in this country and that they were trying to suppress it, even though they were directing their attention to a man who was only supposed to be working on a commission basis. Counsel said that the evidence for the Crown in this case was so unreliable that no credence could be placed on it. The Crown relied on the evidence of two witnesses, one of whom was a detective and the other a man named Thomson. Ihomson was really an accomplice, and they must remember that an accomplice in law was regarded as perhaps the most unsatisfactory of witnesses. They found that before Thomson had made any statement to the police at all he had been given to understand that by so doing he would be free from any criminal responsibility. Counsel reviewed the evidence, and referred to the extraordinary carryings on of the accused in the bar if he were really a bookmaker. When a bookmaker was liable to a fine of £SOO and to imprisonment for two years for making a bet he would hardly be likely to carry on business in the open way alleged against accused. Moreover, would the management of the hotel allow such conduct to continue? The accused curiously enough did not accost the constable, although he was supposed to be accosting everybody else. Would a bookmaker make a bet with a man of whom he had any suspicion, and yet they had it in evidence that accused bad said “he d;d not like the look of this joker,” the remark referring to the constable? Why was the barman not called to give evidence whether the £1 was handed to him by the accused? The constable had a whole host of witnesses in the bar. and yet not one had been called except Thomson, who had made his statement believing he was saving his own skin. Then, again, they had the Crown contradicting itself on the point whether any guarantee had been given to Thomson. The jury should give attention to this diversity of evidence. It had not been shown by the entries in the black book that th« accused was a liookmaker. The Crown had tried to make out that the scribbling in the book had something to do with betting, but this had not been proved. Even if thev believed the. Crown Prosecutor regarding the possession of the double charts by Goodman, they should remember that the possession of these did not prove that a man was a bookmaker. I n the case of Goodman the charts related to different days and to d.fferent races.

His Honor, in summing up, explained the law regarding the offence of betting. The evidence given, he said, was relied on by the Crown to show that the accused made a bet and that he gave cards to Thomson, to the detective, and to the other men If they we r e satisfied to believe the evidence of the detective and Thomson, then it was reasonable to believe that a case against the accused had been established. It had been suggested by counsel for the accused that Thomson was an accomplice, but there was ample corroboration of his evidence by the detective. The jury retired at 10 minutes to 3 and returned at 25 minutes to 4 with a verdict of miiltv. The accused was remanded for sentence. Friday. May 7. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim). BOOKMAKING. Walter Goodman was brought up for sentence on a charge of bookmaking Mr C. J. L. White, who appealed for the prisoner, said that his Honor would see from the police report that Goodman had a large number of convictions against him. The present offence had been committed while the prisoner was under the influence of drink. His Honor asked if the prisoner had been carrying on business as a bookmaker, to which Mr White replied in the negative. His Honor remarked that there were 38 convictions against prisoner. Mr White said the man was a good worker, and drink seemed to be his only trouble. He had apparently been working on a small commission, but was not one of the big professionals at all. His Honor: Is the man really a bookmaker ? The Crown Prosecutor: No, that is not the case. His Honor said the man had made three bets and had not entered one of them in his book. When Thomson asked him how he was to get his money, he had said at the Gridiron bar next afternoon. He had not made any payment, and it looked as if he were merely collecting money. The Crown Prosecutor remarked that the man was breaking the Statute. His Honor said prisoner had not even taken the names of the people whp laid wagers with him The Crown Prosecutor said he thought the prisoner had been taking short turns at bookmaking with the object of pocketing the money, and drew attention to a case in which a fine of £SO had been imposed, and the man had “done” three months. Mr White said that was because the man could not pay the fine. His Honor said the prisoner would be fined £2O, one month being allowed in which to pay the fine. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND THEFT. Sidney Harris and George M'Kay Polwarth were brought up for sontence on charges of robbery with violence and the theft of a cash-bog from a motor bus. Mr A. O. Hanlon appeared for Polwarth and Mr A. G. Neill for Harris. His Honor: Have you anything to add to the police report, Mr Adams? The Crown Prosecutor replied in the negative, and said the two accused appeared to have been members of a gang that had been giving the police a good deal of trouble for some little time.

His Honor said the crime of robbery with violence was a very serious one and would have to be met with a substantial term of imprisonment. Each of the prisoners would be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. On the charge of theft each would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the two sentences to be concurrent, meaning three years altogether.