MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY

Southland Times, Issue 23737, 8 February 1939, Page 13

MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY

PERISCOPE USED TO WATCH ACTIONS JURY’S DISAPPROVAL OF METHOD (United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, February 7. Finding James Felix Murch not guilty of the theft of £35, the jury added a rider in the Supreme Court today that it wished to express its disapproval of the method used to trap Murch.. The use of a periscope to watch Murch’s movements from a room above the shop in which he was employed was described by several witnesses for the Crown. Mr Justice Northcroft presided. Murch pleaded not guilty to the theft of £35 from Edmund William Hall.

Outlining the case, Mr A. W- Brown for the Crown, said that Murch was employed by Hall, who was'a herbalist in Armagh street. Hall’s son became suspicious of Murch and had a periscope installed in a room above the shop, by means of which a private detective kept watch. On . November 1 the investigator and Hall, ju'n., said they had a cleai’ view of proceedings in the shop below. They saw Murch take money from where Hall, sen., had placed it and put it in his pocket. When he was accosted Murch denied the theft, but later he produced £2B in notes, saying that he was keeping it for Hall, sen., who had a bad memory. After several witnesses were called by the Crown, Mr D. W. Russell, for the accused, said evidence for the defence would be very short and attesting to the good character of the accused.

Addressing the jury, Mr Russell said that Murch had never been before the Court before, and two witnesses had told how they had found him to be a good citizen over a period of years. The °f proof that the accused was a thief rested entirely on the Crown. There was no gain in saying that Murch took the money, but the jury had to decide whether he intended to return it or to steal it. The accused’s contention was that he took the money to look after it for Hall, sen.

Counsel drew attention to the dismissal about this time of two other assistants in the shop.

His Honour said there were two ingredients in the crime of theft—the taking and the intention. The taking of the money was acknowledged, and the whole case turned on the intention of Murch.

His Honour said that the money had been taken in a secretive way. Murch had failed to report to Hall that day that he had taken it. He had denied taking it when accosted and he had only returned £2B. If the jury accepted what Hall, jun. had said, his Honour thought it would have some difficulty believing what Murch maintained.

The jury presented its verdict after a short retirement. ,