NOT VALID

Southland Times, Issue 20522, 26 June 1928, Page 7

NOT VALID

CONVICTION QUASHED CASE AGAINST BLLH LICENSEE JUSTICES REVERSE DECISION A re hearing of the case against William Latham Hogg, licensee of the Golden Age Hotel, Bluff, was granted in the Bluff Police Court yesterday and as a result the Justices of the Peace, Messrs R. A. Cruickshank and G. R. George, reversed their previous decision and the conviction and fine of £3 were revoked. The full text of the charge against Hogg was: “That on June 21 he did receive four drunrs of varnish and two drums of enamel the property of the Commonwealth and Dominion Shipping Line from the s.s. Port Sydney knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained.” At the first hearing accused was not represented by counsel, but Mr Eustace Russell appeared for him yesterday. In the claim for the rehearing was a clause stating that Hogg had been arrested straight away following the finding of the stolen property on his premises and that he had

appeared before the Court almost immediately. Sergeant Tonkinson, the prosecuting officer, drew attention to this in opening his case, stating that he told accused that he could apply for a remand but he did not wish to take that course. Mr Russell explained that as a result of the charge further evidence had been secured.

Accused again elected to be dealt with summarily and reiterated his plea of not guilty.

The case submitted for the prosecution was substantially the same as that adduced on Friday, a report of the proceedings appearing in yesterday’s issue. As stated by Sergeant Tonkinson, the facts were briefly that two firemen, Alfred Thomas Warren and Albert Edward Redwood, from the Port Sydney, were arrested on a charge of theft and from information the police had reason to believe that the stolen goods were on accused’s property. A search was conducted, under a warrant, and the goods discovered in the yard packed in a case under some other boxes. The two firemen had since been convicted and one of them gave evidence against Hogg. He was not subpoaened by the police as that would have meant holding up the ship.

Constable* Edward Stephen Skipworth gave evidence along those lines. Cross-ex-amined by Mr Russell he stated that the case had been opened by a spade secured from an adjoining shed. The nails with which the lid was nailed on were old nails, but had been recently hammered in. Constable John August White also gave evidence. The ground was gone over again by Charles Walter Tonkinson, Sergeant of Police, who stated that Hogg was in a state of nervousness when the goods were found. Cross-examined he admitted that under similar circumstances anyone would be nervous. There was access to the rear of the hotel from Gore street, a right-of-way and a back street. The hotel was one of the biggest buildings at Bluff. Witness examined accused at the hearing on Friday as to whether or not he was having painting done on some of his property in Otago. Witness’s suggestion was that the stolen paint would be useful to accused. Hogg denied having property in Otago, but his mother was getting a house in Dunedin papered by a Mr Cosgrove. Sergeant Tonkinson then asked Mr Russell if he were going to call the evidence of one of the firemen from, the Port Sydney who was sitting in the Court.

Mr Russell objected to the question, stating that he had never been asked such a question before. “I will go on with my case.” he said, “when the case for the police is closed. I have no right to address the Court until the prosecution is finished. I will endeavour to show first, that there is no evidence before the Court on which a conviction can be entered. If the Bench disagrees then I will have to go into the defence. Then I will certainly call new evidence. However, I do not think there is a case to answer. If the police have anything further I invite them to go on with it.”

Charles John Mayse, a fireman on the Port Sydney, subpoaened for the defence, was called by the sergeant. He said that he came back on the train from Invercargill on Saturday with Hogg, and witness suggested to him that he should take a statement from him (witness). This was done. He was served with a summons to appear as a witness and he went to the captain and showed him the book with his statement. The captain said the best thing to do would be to give it to the police. “I told the captain that the statement was not correct,” he said, “because I did not want to be dragged into this case. I allowed myself to be persuaded to give this evidence.”

Mr Russell then addressed the Court, submitting that there was no case for accused to answer. The charge suggested that he received the goods and took them into his possession and control knowing them to have been stolen. There was no evidence before the Court that Hogg knew anything about the paint. Accused suspected that the goods were stolen when the firemen offered them for sale, but there was not any evidence of knowledge on Hogg’s part. To substantiate the charge it had to be proven that the receiver must have known that the subject matter was dishonestly obtained. The mere fact that the goods were found on his premises was not sufficient. What happened was that when the firemen offered the goods to Hogg they were rebuffed. Obviously they could not walk the streets with the paint and they planted it where it was found in Hogg’s yard where every convenience was provided for secreting it. The bogey raised by the sergeant regarding the painting of a house in Otago was false as he had a receipt (produced) showing that the men were paid for that work on May 24. Mr Russell then went into legal argument. The Justices retired and returned, stating that they still thought there was a case for accused to answer. William Lathfim Hogg was then put in the box, giving evidence along lines similar to those on Friday. People, he said, could walk do4m his right-of-way from one street to another without going into his hotel. It would be quite easy for anyone to procure the tools from the shed in his yard to nail up a case. Frederick Harding, a fireman on the Port Sydney, said that on Thursday night he overheard two drunk men talking in the forecastle. One of the men said he had the “stuff” planted in the yard. Being no concern of his he took no further notice. The man did not say what yard, and it was not until next morning that he knew what the “stuff” was. “I told the captain a bundle of lies,” he added to the sergeant, “because I wanted to get out of being a witness and leaving the ship. I told you (the sergeant) I knew nothing as I wanted to get out of the case. I am not particular of a fib or two in regard to my own ship.” Christopher Colebatch, another fireman, said he overheard in the forecastle that they had*some “stuff” and tried to get rid of it at an hotel, but that they had got a “knock-back” from the “governor” and had “dumped the stuff in the yard.” The men he overheard were Warren and Redwood (the two men convicted of the theft of the goods).

This closed the case and the Justices retired. “The previous decision is quashed,” said Mr Cruickshank, on their return. “The case is dismissed.”