SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19102, 21 November 1923, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

YESTERDAY'S BUSINESS. CRIMINAL SESSIONS. The Supreme Court resumed its session yesterday morning before Mr Justice Sim, when the criminal cases were dealt with. THE GRAND JURY. The following were empanelled in the Grand Jury:—Messrs C. J. Brodrick (foreman*. A. M. Ayling. F. A. Barclay, F. H. Bath, N. A. Brodrick, G. Brown, W. G. Compton, R. J. Cumming. H. B. Farnall, A. Froggatt. Jos. Johnston, Junr., A. Moffett, Jas. McLeod. Arch. McNeill, B. Officer, H. Price, A. J. Wesney and J. R. Whitmore. HIS HONOUR'S CHARGE. In his address to the Grand Jury, the Judge said that there were only two cases iu the criminal calendar, both charges being for theft. In one case G. W. B. Dickson was charged with stealing 410 rabbitskins. It appeared from the depositions that a man named Cotton was working as a rabbiter on the Dunrobin Station at Mossburn and that he had had 850 skins stored in the woolshed there. On August 19 he had visited the shed and found the skins intact, but when he went back a week later he found that 410 of them had disappeared. Further, it appeared that from August 20, accused had sold some 1600 rabbitskins to Johnston and Coy, of Invercargill, and of these a large number had been identified as skins which had come from the Dunrobin Station. With that evidence before it, the Grand Jury should have no difficulty in finding a true bill against accused. In the case of David McLister, who was charged with stealing a quantity of gold valued at £422 0s 6d, which was alleged to belong to a partnership of which accused was a member, it appeared from the papers that the accused, in conjunction with a man named Blackley, who was a run-holder at Athol, had carried on mining operations by means of a sluicing plant on the run. In August. 1922, 26ozs of gold were sold io the Bank, and then two months later Blackley sold out his interest in the claim io accused. The deposition? showed that >n September 7 of the same year, shortly before the partnership vfes dissolved, the iccused sold or deposited at a bank at invercargiU 97ozs lldwts of gold, in respect io which the present charge was laid. That gold had been banked by the accused in his own name and nothing had been said to Blackley about it. Subsequently Blackley's suspicions had been aroused and he had gone to the police concerning the matter, and they had obtained a statement from him from which it appeared that accused had come by the 97ozs of gold honestly. To justify the Jury in finding a true bill on the charge of stealing, it would be necessary to be satisfied that there was some evidence that pointed to the conclusion that the accused himself had stolen the gold. There was no doubt that the circumstances were suspicious, but even so, the Jury would not be justified in placing a man on trial merely on suspicions. Even if a true bill were found it must be found in the evidence that there was something which would justify a common jury in finding accused guilty. Taking the circumstances in connection with the sale of the gold, it would be seen that during the existence of the partnership, all the gold won had been sold at Gore and that for the 12 months, ending October, 1921, 95ozs had been sold. Then a month after the partnership had been dissolved, accused had sold o9ozs of gold on November 7 to the bank at Gore and two days later a further 57ozs had been sold to the bank at Invercargill and then a further 550 z& Thus in exactly two months after buying out Blackley, accused had sold 171ozs of gold, whereas during the whole of the previous twelve months’ partnership the amount of gold sold was only 95ozs. These figures certainly showed a strong suspicion against accused but apparently there was no evidence in justifying a Jury to try accused for stealing the gold. Unless the Jury found that there was something to justify the case being gone Bn with, it must throw the case out. After an adjournment of 20 minutes, the urand Jury found a true bill in the case of Dickson, and subsequently, after an adjournment of an hour and a-half, a similar dfttision. was arrived at in the case of McLister. BORSTAL ESCAPEES. HARDWICK SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT. YOUNGER RECEIVES FURTHER TERM. Thomas Edward Hardwick and John Younger appeared for sentence on a charge of escaping from the Borstal Institute, and on four charges of breaking, entering and theft. Hardwick also appeared for sentence on a further three charges of breaking, entering and theft. The accused were not represented by counsel. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr W. Macalister, stated that the Probation Officer, Mr Pollock, who knew both of the men, was of the opinion that Hardwick had undoubtedly been the ring-leader or the master mind. The police had also mentioned that the country had been put to a great deal of expense, amounting to over £lOO. The Superintendent of the Borstal Institute also considered that Hardwick was the ringleader and that the other man was a fool. So far as Hardwick was concerned, the superintendent did not have any recommendation to make, but recommended that 1 ounger should be given a further chance at reformative detention. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, Hardwick admitted having had a long list of convictions against him for theft and for breaking, entering and theft. His Honour said that Hardwick had pleaded guilty to nine charges. He would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on each of these, the terms to be cumulative. Part of the sentence was that he was to be declared an habitual criminal. Younger was ordered to be retained for reformative purposes for a term of seven I'ears. THEFT OF RABBITSKINS. ACCUSED CONVICTED. George Warren Buller Dickson was charged with stealing 410 rabbitskins valued at £26 13/-, the property of Patrick James Cotton. The theft was alleged to have been committed on or about August 23. Dickson was further charged with receiving the rabbitskins, knowing the same to have been stolen. Mr Eustace Russell appeared for the accused, who pleaded “not guilty.” After outlining the circumstances of the case, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr W. Macalister, said that there were some circumstances which pointed very strongly to the guilt of the accused. The skins were taken late on Sunday night or early on Monday morning. That morning the accused left Mossburn with 1600 skins contained in four bags with a corresponding number of skins in each. The skins contained in one of the bags was different from the others and Johnstone, who had purchased them said that the quality of those skins were higher than the others and apparently were different skins altogether. Cotton and other identified the skins, and all the circumstances pointed to the conclusion that these skins were the ones that were stolen. Patrick James Cotton, rabbiter at Dunrobin Station, near Mossburn, stated that in August last he was stationed about four and a-half miles from the woolshed and was in the habit of taking the skins to the shed every Sunday. On Sunday. August 19, he took some skins to the shed, the total then there being 800. On August 26 he returned to the shed and found that 410 skins were missing. The matter was reported to the police. Some time later Constable Henderson showed him a bundle of skins which he identified as his. He had been rabbiting for four years, and sold all his oki&s to Mr Kingsland, of Kingsland

Brothers <fc Anderson. He identified his own skins by their general quality and by the manner in which they were fatted and dressed.

To Mr Russell: The skins from the rabbits on Dunrobin Station differed from those on the land surrounding and were superior. The condition of the pelt to a large extent depends upon the amount of fat, but during the last season he had not found that the fur was thinner than usual. James Andrew Johnston stated that on August 20 he purchased some skins from the accused. Dickson first brought in one sack, but witness said that he wanted to see all the skins and Dickson then brought in three other sacks full. The quality of the skins in the first bag brought in was much better than that of the remaining skins. Witness purchased 1600 skins and there was about an equal number of skins in each of the four sacks. He remembered Mr Kingsland coming in when these skins were on the floor. To Mr Russell: There were many skins in the other three bags equal in quality and similar to those produced. When Mr Kingsland came in there were five or six bales of skins in a heap among which were those he had "purchased from the accused. Francis Kingsland, wool and skin merchant, stated that he knew Cotton, and had purchased rabbitskins from him for the last four years. Towards the end of August last witness was in Johnstone’s store and saw a line of skins, which he thought had come from Cotton. At that time he had not heard that any of Cotton’s skins were missing. Dunrobin skins were different to any other skins is Southland and differed both in fur and pelt from those coming from the surrounding districts. Cotton was the only rabbiter he knew who cut the skins so as to retain the fur from the leg of the rabbit. Nathaniel Cowie stated that he was with Cotton in the woolshed on August 19. On the following day he was in the shed and noticed that about half of the skins had gone. Witness had been trapping with Cotton for the last two years. Some time later Constable Henderson showed him a bundle of skins, and he knew that they were Cotton’s as soon as he saw them. He knew the accused and on several occasions had seen him at Dunrobin Station. The accused lived about five miles from the station, and did some rabbiting. On the night of August 19 witness heard the dogs bark, and thought he heard footsteps of someone crossing the swing bridge near the station. To Mr Russell: He had sold some 200 skins to the accused, and a few days later his brother had sold 50 skins to Dickson. Some of these skins came from Dunrobin Station, but had not been prepared by Cotton. Constable Henderson, Lumsden, stated • that he arrested the accused on September 25, but the accused made no statement. To Mr Russell: He never asked the accused to make any statement. Detective-Sergeant Carroll said that he obtained a bundle of skins from the witness Johnstone. This closed the evidence for the prosecution, and for the defence Mr Russell called the accused, who said that he was a rabbiter and farm labourer employed in the Mossburn district. On August 20 he brought 1600 rabbitskins and sold them to Johnstone. He came to Invercargill on that date to appear at the Court on a charge of stealing whisky. Of the skins he brought to Invercargill all were caught' by himself or his mate, with the exception of the 250 he obtained from Cowie and his brother. The 50 skins he got from James Cowie were taken by Cowie from the woolshed. On Sunday evening he was up at a place owned by a man named Heenan, bundling up the skins. He was there until about 10.30 o’clock, and several others were present. He then went home to bed. He was not on Dunrobin Station on Sunday, although he had been there on previous occasions. The skins, produced, did not belong to him, but were ones which he got from Cowie. To Mr Macalister: He could not say whether the skins produced belong to Cotton or not. He did not know whose they were. At the last sitting of the Supreme Court he pleaded guilty to two charges of breaking, entering and theft. James Reid, teacher at Mossburn, stated that he resided at Heenan’s place. He knew the accused, and remembered seeing him on Sunday afternoon and evening on August 19. Dickson was at Heenan’s place and did not leave there until between 10 and 11 o’clock at night. He saw the accused about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, but did not see him again until between 7 and 8 p.m. William Heenan said that Dickson had tea at his place on the Sunday evening, but tea to fix up his rabbitskins, and did not return until between 8.30 and 9 p.m. The night was a very rough one. Witness knew that the accused had a number of rabbitskins of his own. Stanley Gallagher, farmer, Matuka, said that he knew the accused well. He saw him late in the afternoon of August 19 when he asked witness to drive him to Lumsden. Witness drove him to the Lumsden Station, but they missed the train there and so drove right into Invercargill. Dennis Healey, ploughman employed by Heenan, said that he assisted the accused to bundle up the skins on the Sunday evening. Altogether there were four sacks of skins. They were tied in bundles of ten and there were 400 skins m each bag. They finished bundling up the skins about 8.30 p.m., when the accused went over to Heenan’s. The accused returned about 10.30 p.m., and shortly after that witnessleft to go over to his camp some distance away. Mr Eustace Russell, in addressing the jury, stated that the case for the Crown was that on the Sunday 850 skins belonging to Cotton were in the woolshed. Cowie said that on the following day he noticed that about half of the skins had gone. According to the evidence, however, Cowie never told Cotton that the skins were missing, fn- order to enable a verdict of guilty to be brought against the accused the Grown had to prove conclusively that the skins sold by the accused to Johnston were part of those owned by Cotton which were in. the shed on the Sunday. Immense stress had been laid by the Crown on the fact that the pelts of the rabbits on Dunrobin Estate were of particular texture and different in other ways from the skins on neighbouring lands. The accused did not claim that the 10 skins, produced, had been caught by him, and it had been admitted that the accused had the same week received from two men working on the Dunrobin Estate skins which were identical in quality to those owned by Cotton. It had also been said that of the skins sold by the accused one bag had been better on the whole than the remainder, but Johnstone had said that there were any amount of skins in the other bags similar in quality to those in the first bag. It was not necessary to suggest that there had been theft on the part of the accused, even supposing they came to the conclusion they were Cotton’s skins. It was quite possible that they were the skins he had obtained from James Cowie m mistake. The skins were in the shed up till the time Cotton left on the Sunday afternoon, and the subsequent movements of the accused had been satisfactorily accounted for. They had to be satisfied that the skins were Cotton’s, and if they had any doubt about that the whole case against the accused fell to the ground. Even supposing they were Cotton’s skins it was quite conceivable that the accused had got them from Cowie by mistake. Mr Macalister said that he did not think the jury would have any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the 400 skdis contained in one of the bags were skins belonging to Cotton, and that they had been stolen from the woolshed. It was suggested by the defence that the accused was not the thief, but that the skins had been stolen by young Cowie. The defence had also endeavoured to prove an alibi by accounting for accused’s movements. It had not been suggested, however, that the skins had been taken during the afternoon or evening, but either very late at night or in the early morning. It would have been a simple matter for the accused to have explained these things in the Lower Court, but not a word had been said. ft

appeared as if the defence had been faked since the case was heard in the Lower Court. The only evidence inconsistent with the case for the Crown was the evidence given by the boy Healy, who said that the accused had four bags of skins on the Sunday night. It was for the jury to say whether they placed any reliance on that evidence or not.

His Honour, in summing up, said that if the jury convicted at all it should be on the first count. It appeared that on August 19 Cotton had 850 skins in the woolshed at Dunrobin. This evidence was corroborated by Cowie, who stated that on the Monday morning he noticed that some of the skins were missing. It was clear, therefore, that the skins must have been stolen on Sunday night or early on Monday morning, if they accepted the evidence of Cotton or Cowie. They had the fact that on the very next day the accused came to Invercargill with 1600 skins for sale. He produced one bag and turned out the skins and the evidence was that the skins in that bag were better than those in the other bags. Of these skins a number were identified as skins from Dunrobin Station and as the product of Cotton’s work. If they were satisfied as to the identity of the skins they could draw the conclusion that the 410 skins belonging to Cotton were stolen on the Sunday night or on Monday morning, and that the accused was the person who stole them. The accused did not say that they were not Cotton’s skins, but said that he had received 250 skins from the Cowies. If he nought those 250 skins some three or four days before they could not have anything to do with the 450 skins alleged to have been stolen, and it looked as if the 250 skins was an attempt to confuse the issue. The accused attempted to prove an alibi, but when the case came before the Magistrate no suggestion of any alibi had been made, and that was the time when the accused should have produced his alibi. They knew even from the alibi that the theft took place on Sunday night or on Monday morning, and the accused had left himself open to the suggestion by the Crown that the alibi had been manufactured. If they had any doubt about the guilt of the accused then he should be acquitted, but if they were satisfied that he had stolen the skins then they should return a verdict of guilty. After a retirement of 35 minutes the jury returned with a. verdict of guilty on the charge of theft. His Honour deferred sentence. ALLEGED THEFT OF GOLD. CROWN CASE FAILS. David McLister was charged with on or about September 7, 1922, being a joint owner with Edward Francis Blakely in a quantity of gold valued at £56, he did steal same thereby committing theft. Mr Hanlon, with Mr Eustace Russell, appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. After the evidence for the Crown had been called the Crown Prosecutor stated that the case against the accused was not a strong one. His Honour said that there might be ground for suspicion against the accused, but he did not think the case went far enough to justify the Crown in asking the jury to convict. Before convicting the accused, the jury must be satisfied that there was more than suspicion. There seemed to him to be no evidence to show that the accused had stolen the gold, and therefore the case should be dismissed. The jury did not retire, and found the accused not guilty.