ALLEGED THEFT

Southland Times, Issue 23128, 19 February 1937, Page 14

ALLEGED THEFT

Labourer On Trial OPENING OF HEARING In the Supreme Court yesterday Henry Hunt Manson pleaded not guilty to a charge of theft of £4l in money, the property of Samuel Innes, Milford Sound. Mr Justice Kennedy presided, Mr H. J. Macalister (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the case for the Crown and Mr Gordon Reed appeared on behalf of accused. The following jury was empanelled: Edward Vincent McKeever (foreman), David George, Thomas John Meadows, Robert Rhind, Russell Hosie, Max Bocock, Jahn Bassett, George Samuel Eedy, Reginald Francis Albany Jones, Robert Gardiner Pullar, . Alexander William Taylor, James McLellan. In opening the case, Mr Macalister said that accused, who was working at Milford, and was going to Invercargll, was given the sum of £4l by Samuel Innes, another worker at Milford, to deliver to Innes’s brother. There was no question of the accused not having received the money from Innes. He returned to Milford later, on September 29, and only when Innes visited him at his camp did he inform him that he had lost the money. He said it had disappeared by the time he had got to Bluff. The Crown’s case rested on proving that statements accused had made about what he had done with the money were false. Assuming that he lost the money, was it likely, Mr Macalister asked, that accused would not have reported the loss? It Was not likely. Labourer’s Evidence

Samuel Innes, a labourer employed at the Public Works Department's camp at Milford, said he knew accused, who was also employed at Milford. In September last accused was returning to Invercargill by the Tamatea and witness asked him to take some money with him and send it to his brother at Kakanui. He gave accused £27 and asked the engineer to give accused money amounting to £l4 12/5 owing to witness —a total of £4l 12/5. Out of the money accused was to procure a couple of good pocket knives and a ticket in Tattersall’s sweep. About the end of September, accused returned to No. 1 camp, but did not call on witness. Eh sent no communication and witness visited him about the fourth day after he had returned. Witness heard he was selling grog. Accused said he had some bad news for witness, and said he had lost all the money. Witness him how he lost it. He said he put it in a gum boot in a canvas bag, and when he looked into the bag halfway around the coast, the money was all right. He did not see the bag again, however, until three days after he got to Invercargill. Witness told the workers what happened and they called a meeting of the union. Two men were appointed to interview accused in witness’s presence. Accused told the men the same story about the gum boot and the bag. He also said he had lost money belonging to another man and £6 of his own money. He had no money, he said, when he reached Bluff. When questioned about money he had used to buy liquor at Bluff, accused said he forgot—he had £2. To Mr Reed: There was £lO 10/- in 'silver. None of it was gambling money. He earned it. There was a difference of two miles between the two camps. He did not know that accused had been sea-sick. It was the engineer who advised witness to put the matter in the hands of the police. Accused stuck to the one story despite a threat to put turn out of the camp. He did not hear anything about throwing accused in the river.

Stanley Alexander Boatwood, a worker at Milford, said he came out on the Tamatea on September 7, the same trip as accused. In a conversation accused said he had only 3/- and he did not know how he was going to get from Bluff to Invercargill. Some of the others on the boat told him not to worry—they would see him through, jlfter the arrival at Bluff accused was one of a party which went to the Bay View Hotel. Witness noticed him in the bar and saw him cash a pound note and leave instructions for a bottle of gin to be sent round to another employee at Milford. Accused had several drinks at (he hotel. Later, after doing some shopping, witness returned to the hotel and had tea there. Accused came into the dining room. He was under the influence of liquor. Accused accompanied witness and another named Penrose in a taxi to Invercargill. A week later witness saw accused again, but he did not mention anything about losing luggage or money. Witness returned to Milford by the Tamatea. Accused was aboard, but he said nothing about losing any money. The first witness heard of the loss was when Innes reported it. Accused told the men at the inquiry that he thought he left his bag in the taxi, which took him to Invercargill, and he communicated with the taxi driver. The bag, he said, was later discovered in the left luggage office at Invercargill. Witness did not hear anything about a canvas bag being missing the night they drove to Invercargill in the taxi. Witness took a statement from accused in which he said he reckoned he had put the canvas bag and an old portmanteau in the taxi. The bag was later recovered at the railway station, but, the statement continued, the money was gone.

Two Days On Boat

To Mr Reed: They were two days on the boat from Milford to Bluff. At Bluff the licensee of the Bay View Hotel asked witness to look after accused. He was under the influence of liquor and becoming a nuisance. At Invercargill he got some parcels from the floor of the taxi and contributed 5/-‘towards the taxi hire. He wrote the statement in witness’s presence. Ulrich Rupert Smith, manager of Moffett and Company, wine and spirit merchants, said he remembered accused giving an order on September 9 for two cases of whisky (24 bottles). He paid cash for the whisky. Annette Marie Martin, wife of the licensee of the Bay View Hotel, Bluff, said she remembered accused being in the hotel bar on September 8, in the afternoon. He gave witness a brown leather portmanteau and asked that it not be given to anyone but him, as it contained money. From what he said witness gathered that there was a lot of money in the bag. She handed it to her husband. To Mr Reed: She did not see him with any other bag, but she saw a number of bags in the hall of the hotel. Someone called a day later and asked about a bag, but she did not know if it was accused. Edward Bertie Boberg, a taxi driver at Bluff, said he conveyed some luggage from the Tamatea to the Bay View Hotel. He took accused to Invercargill in the evening. Accused’s luggage consisted of an old portmanteau and a parcel or parcels. The portmanteau was put on the back of the carrier. Accused did not hand him a canvas bag to take to Invercargill. Accused took his portmanteau with him when he left the taxi. To Mr Reed: Accused was sober when he got into the taxi at Bluff. When accused got out of the taxi that night he said somehting about a can-

vas bag. He did not see witness at Bluff about the bag. There were other bags deposited at the railway station. Accused left instructions to leave the bag at the left luggage office. Harold James Anderson, clerk in the Public Works Department, Invercargill, gave evidence that accused . began working for the Public Works Department on January 18, 1936. He detailed the payments made to accused between January 1936 and September 14, 1936. Constable Hogg, formerly stationed at Bluff, produced a statement made by accused on November 3. The hearing was adjourned till this morning.