THE RAILWAY THEFTS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16604, 6 December 1924, Page 8

THE RAILWAY THEFTS.

GUILTY OK RKCKIVINf!

Tho hearing of tlve charges of theft against Delvin Byford was continued before His Honor Mr. Justice Reed at the fclupreme Court yesterday afternoon, the charges arising out oi pilfering from trucks in the rail\v:iy yards in September and November last. Mr. I''. \V. Nolan prosecuted, and Mr. I'. I'». Hill appeared for the accused. Cross-examined by Mr Hill, Dctec live McLeod, continuing his evidence, slated that more stolen property had been discovered in various places near the accused's bach, .some of it being buried. When witness said Breeze was not telling the truth by implicating him, the accused indicated that he suspected Breeze of being mixed up in somo.fhing. The young man Breeze, who had beer, baching with, the accused, had admitted stealing all the goods referred l to in the charge against Byford. and told him where the goods were concealed. He dlid not say that the accused had actually revealed the places where the goods were hidden, but it was not true that they had searched other sheds before the one to which the accused had the key. To Mr. Nolan the witness said the ■accused ihadi only indicated the one shed as being at all likely to contain the stolen property. To His Honor, the witness said Breeze was only a boy of 19. who unfortunately had 1 been drinking heavily. Constable Thompson gave corroboiative evidence of the recovery of the stolen property. This concluded Ihe Crown case.

I>asil Goodwin Breeze, called to give evidence for the defence, stated that since July he and the acetified had shared, a bach near the railway station. o>n November 1.5 he was arrested, with the accused, for stealing goods from trucks in the railway yards. fn the lower Court witness pleaded guilty to the charge. Byford had nothing to do with the thefts, witness alone being responsible. He had never told the accused where ho got the goods. Tin; key in the whare had been used by witness to open a shed in the Public Works yards, where he, had put stolen goods. Witness had also "planted*' other goods under the shed. On the night of November 14, witness came into the whare at 8 o'clock and then went up to town. O'n the Friday morning before he was arrested Byford asked him what the mess was in the kitchen, and witness told him he had stolen the articles. He told witness to get them out of it or he would see the stationmaster. Later in the day witness put a box of stolen goods in the accused's car, and asked him to look after them. Witness took very little of the stolen property into the whare, concealing most of it, outside. When first, arrested witness had said Byford was concerned in the thefts, liul this was not true. At the time he thought Byford had given information against him, ami' ho wanted to get one back on him.

Mr. Nolan read to the witness the statement made by him to Hie police. Questioned by Mr. Nolan the witness said he still recognised the seriousness of his acts, and recognising this he said the statement was untrue wherever if implicated. Byford. It was also untrue that he had given any of the goods away. After the accused was in custody witness made a, further statement, in regard to the case of goods taken to Mr Dominey's. This statement was also incorrect, and it was not true that Byford was responsible. The statements vrcrc deliberately false, made for the purpose of involving a perfectly innocent man, who, he believed, had laid an information against him. Witness had been interviewed by Detective McLeod early this week, and then told him he would adhere to his statements. ■Since you and Byford have been at. the gaol you have not. been kept apart ? .No. Haw you and Byford discussed your evidence?—He has asked me to tell (he truth ; that is all. ' Do you remember telling Byford the police thought you were going to stick to your story ; but you were going to stick to him?—No. Did you say it?—l don't remember. Did you leave the Court at dinnertime with Byford?—Yes. Did you tell him he had been caught on one charge and he might as well give in on the other? —I don't think so. Did you use words to that- effect? — I might have. Mr Hill: You did see Detective McLeod early in the week? —Yes. What did he say?—He said if I did not stick to my story I would get a rough half-hour. Mr Nolan : Well, haven't you had it? —Not yet. Mr Hill : Did you write out the state ment?—No. Detective'McLeod typed it. Did you tell him what to write?—He asked me questions, and I answered "yes" or "no."' .Mr Hill was pursuing the subject of the method of getting the .statement when His Honor interrupted. "You had better let the witness tell his own story," said Hie Honor, "lift is obviously lying. The, police don't gel statements in that way. If he wants to lie let him do il in his own way without you assisting him. Co on." The point was not pressed, the witness briefly explaining that he would answer questions while either Delrclivc McLeod or Constable Thompson look 11)0 statement down on flu- typewriter. Addressing tin- jury, Mr Hill said they had a somewhat extraordinary story. They had two charges to consider—those of theft and receiving. What evidence was there to show that the accused had either stolen the goods or knew they wcro stolen? A very large number of witnesses had been called aiidi gave formal evidence which did not implicate the accused in any way. The most serious fact against the accused was the box which was taken to Dominey's, and this had been explained by Breeze. Were they going to convict the accused simply because he had tried to help a mate who was in trouble? The evidence, he submitted, was not sufficient for the jui'v to decide that the accused was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. Mr Nolan .said il must b? perfectly clear that a large quantity <">':' goods had been stolen from Ihe station yards, and Hint some of I hem Were found. in tho whare occupied by the accused and Breeze. It milsl be clear also that the accused had known where Iho good-; were concealed. Th.-v had Ihe dory of how the cnr.e of I'ood'. win taken to Dominey's house and they could draw their own conclusions a:-. t,» whelhei the story told in regard In ii, wu., correct, Jfe had no hesitation hi r.aying lhafc the story told in Court war, ulviolutelv false. It was clear, he suggested, that the two men had put their heads together and decided that Breeze should tell a story in Hie hope of getting Byford off. On the other hand, ho believed thai Ihe original statement, made by Breeze was the \viw slorv. The case was founded on mow

Ihan suspicion, and, he submitted, bad not hern answered.

In summing-up His Honor said that if a man was found in charge of stolen goods the juiy was entitled to infer, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, thai they were either stolen by the possessor or else received' from the person who had stolen them. In this ease a boy ol 19 years and the an used, who was 44 '.'ears, bad been baching together for some months. During thai lime a large quantity of goods had been stolen by cither one or both of them, and the jurywas at liberty to consider whether the offences could have heen committed by one without the knowledge of the other. The accused was at least old enough to be Ihe father of the youth, and the jurywas also at liberty to consider whether or not he would have some influence over the younger man. They might also consider whether the same influence had resulted in the youth coming into the Court and telling a story entirely different from which ho originally told the police. If Byford was innocent why should 1 Breeze have said only an hour or two before going info the box. "they have caught you on the first charge, you had better turn it up"? Reviewing the evidence it must be clear that the accused had been in possession of stolen goods, and had handed them over to Dominey to look after. Were they satisfied with the' explanation given, especially when they remembered that before the goods were handed over Byford knew, on his own statement, that Breeze, had been stealing? If the accused had not satisfactorily explained his possession of the goods, then they must find him guilty on one count or the'other. If, on thi' other hand, they believed (he explanation, they would" acquit him. If there v»a-, any doubt about i( Ihe benefit would be given to the accused. After a "retirement of half-au-hniir ihe juiy returned with a verdict of guilty of receiving. .Sentence was deferred.