ALLEGED LARCENY.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8700, 20 December 1899, Page 2

ALLEGED LARCENY.

: At the Police Court this morning, before Mr J. Booth, a middle-aged man named John Cl«ary was charged with having, on or about September 21st, 1898, stolen one serge overcoat of the value of 36a, the 1 property of William Pearce. Sergeant Black conducted the case for the prose- ' cutiun, and Mr R. N. Jones appeared 1 for the defendant, Mr Jones said that before the case was gone into he wished to call the attention of '• the Bench to the fact that His Worship had already heard the case. It was the 1 fourth time that the man had been tried. 1 His Worship Baid that he was not at present trying the case ; he was merely ' silting magisterially. If a r-^ima facie case was made out it would be his duty to send the accused for trial. ' Mr Jones : I propose to cite certain 1 authorities to you, and request that the | accused shall be dealt with summarily. His Worship : It is an indictable case, and I am not trying it. Mr Jones : I claim thatfl have the right to have it tried summarily under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1894. Sergeant Black : I wish to correct the statement that it is the fourth time the case has been tried ; it has only been tried on two previous occasions. Mr Jones : It is the fourth time. It was first tried before Mr Booth, when the accused was convicted. Then it was reheard, and the accused was discharged. Afterwards the case was heard by Justices, and now again to-day. Sergeant Black placed before the Court a recent docision of Justice Edwards in support of his contention that in cases where the offence was of over six months' standing the proceedings must be of an indictable nature. He said that the Justices who bad previously tried the case had made a mistake in allowing themselves to be talked over. His Worship : This ruling of Justice Edwards appears to be binding on me. Mr Jones : 1 still say that we have a right to have the case dealt with summarily. His Worship : I cannot deal summarily with the case, as the alleged offence took place more than six months' ago. Mr Jones : I hope that if you are going to deal with the case magisterially that you will cast the evidence given in the previous case from your mind. His Worship : I shall decide on the evidence placed before me. If a prima facit case is made out it will be my duty to send the case for trial. The evidence was then taken. William Pearce, laborer, rosiding at Whataupoko, deposed that be know the accused. Witness owned a blue serge coat, which he last had in his possession on September 21st, 1898. He identified the coat peoduced as his property. He knew it by a grease mark on the collar, and a tear done by a spur. He had the 1 noat at the Royal Hotel on- thft-day -in question. Witness left it hanging in the ' j

passage whilst he was engaged in the billiard room. At about 10.80 in the eveoiog he missed it and thought it had been stolen, fie subsequently reported the matter to the police, giving them a description of the coat. He did not remember seeing accused that day, but he recollected seeing him the following day. He had spoken to him since. He had a conversation with i him one day in the Albion Clnb .Hotel stables. Witness purposely entered into conversation with him in order to see what kind of overcoat he was wearing.. It was not witness's coat that the accused was then wearing. He saw the accused the night he was arrested and recognised his coat on him. Witness wont with Sergeant Black to the Gisborne Hotel, whore he claimed the coat as his property. The coat had often been worn by witness', brother-in-law, -G. W. Markie. —The hitter identified the coat as belonging to Penrco. Evidence was also given by Robert Robertson, who stated that he remembered Fearce purchasing a coat ut his shop, but he could not swear that the one produced was the one he sold. Sorgeant Black stated that from information received from the witness Pearce about 10 p.m. on Saturday November* 1 8tb, ' he accompanied him to the Gisborne hotel. There he saw the accused, who was stand- . ing in the passage. The accused was wearing the coat (produced). Witness told him that Pearce claimed the coat be was wearing as his property, it having been stolen from him in September of the previous year. Witness requested him to come into a room that he might examine the coat. Cieary, Pearce, and witness went upstairs into the sitting room. Witness asked Cieary to take the coat out that Pearce might examine it. The latter, after inspecting it, claimed it as bis, stating that he knew it by a grease stain on the collar and a tear which had been caused by a spur. Witness asked Cieary to accompany him to the police station, which he did. Witness entered the present charge against the accused and read it to him. The latter replied : " What remedy have I got, he is worth nothing," meaning Pearce. By Mr Jones : Accused did not say whether he was guilty or innocent of the charge. He merely made the remark, "What remedy have I got?" Witness presumed this referred to a remedy for false imprisonment. The accused had been living in this district for some time, and had a wife and family. He believed the coat which the accused was that day charged with stealing to be the same he was charged with stealing in November. The accused was brought before the Court on November 20th. - The case was Jnot heard that day. After heating evidence the Magistrate decided to deal with the case summarily, and therefore convicted the accused. A reheariug was applied for and obtained, the accused being again before the Court on' the 24th. Upon reheariug the case was dismissed on the 1 ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. 1 Witness asked His Worship the reason 1 why he dismissed the case, and the reply 1 ho received was that it was for the want I of jurisdiction. Witness was aware that • the objection raised by Mr Jones was ) that the date of the alleged offence was ' over six months previous to the infor- ■ mation being laid. He wished to stale ) that the fresh information was laid on the I same day tliat the case was dismissed by ! the Magistrate. The accußed was re- ) arrested and brought before Justices, Mr ! Jones appearing for the accused. Counsel ) induced the Bench to dismiss the case.., . ) His Worship : Ido not see how you > can say he induced the Benoh. > Sergeant Black : Well, he talked them > over. (Laughter.) I Mr Jones : I used sound arguments. -If a man is once ttied he should not be tried I again. The matter having been dealt with i by the Magistrate, justices could not deal i with it. I Sergeant Black : These proceedings are • taken by me from orders from my , i superiors. i Mr Jones : Your superiors do not know the exact particulars, or they would not have authorised this course. It seems to 1 me a terrible thing that a man Bhould be > so often arrested on the same charge, and • have to find bail three times ruuning. Sergeant Black : These re-arrests wero . I all your doing. I would rather have ouly I arrested the accused once, i Mr Jones having addressed the Court, . His Worship said' that, in bis opinion, a ) primn/acie case had been made out. He ) would take a note of the authorities quoted l by Mr Jones. He thought after hearing ) the decision of Justice Edwards, which ) had been given but recently, he was warI ranted in sending the case to a jury., I The accused, in answer to the charge, ) said : " I have already been acquitted of ) this charge, and I reserve my defence." ) He was then committed to take his trial ) at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme i Court to be held in February next, bail ) being allowed, accused in his own recog- ) naisdnce of £40, and two sureties of £20 ) each. " • ■