ALLEGED JEWELLERY THEFT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 59, 24 October 1911, Page 5

ALLEGED JEWELLERY THEFT.

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. (Per Press Association ) Auckland, October 23. The prisoners, William and Maud Rogers, who wore brought by Detective Scott from San Francisco to answer a charge oi having broken and entered the jewellery shop 0! Adolph Kohn on March 19th last and stolen therefrom goods to the value of £839 13s, appeared again at the Police Court to-day, before Mr E. C. Gotten, S.M. Chief-Detective M-iu’sack conducted the prosecution, and Mr C. E. Matthews (instructed by Mr J. 11. Lundon) appeared for the accused, and intimated that they Would plead not guilty, and that hf would call no evidence nor cross-ex-amine any of the Crown witnesses at this stage of the proceedings. Detective Edward William Scott said that early in June ho proceeded to San Francisco, arriving there on June 24th. On June 26th he had a conversation with the male accuser: in the county gaol. After telling him who lie was, he asked where he had lived. Ho told him some fingerprints had been found in Kohu’s premises, and had been identified as his. He said: “Go on! Did they find finger-prints?” Witness said. “Yes.” He replied, “I was a fool anyway. I could nave the lot of the stuli oyer there, but I thought I would_ got more for it here, and I’ve fallen in." Ho said he “done the job on his own,” and that while in the shop he saw a policeman and another man look in the window, hut they could not see him, and had no chance oi doing so. He went on to say that ho came over to San Earn cisco in the s.s. Manuka with Ins wife (the female accused) and that lie had brought the jewellery (the proceeds of Kohu’s robbery) ashore in a chesterfield overcoat and concealed ahoni his person. Witness asked what had become of a number of watches that were missing, ' and ho replied thai some of them were rolled gold, ami as they were not worth much he “dumped them” in New Zealand. Witness saw tiie female accused, who was also in custody, and slm said she had not pledged or sold any jewellery, and knew nothing about the robbery or the pledging or the sale oi any jewellery. e Detective Scott said that in consequence of a communication he received from Win. Rogers he again lisited him in Alameda County Gaol, where he saw both the accused together. \Vm. Rogers then wrote out a joint confession, declaring that they had only £9 in money when they arrived in San Francisco, and the sum of £4.00 dollars found in their possession when taken to prison iii San Francisco was the sum of money received by the accused troni different pawnbrokers tor jewellery pawned or sold. They in this statement waived all further proceedings in the matter, and directed their attorneys to take no further proceedings in their behalf in any court or courts, and further voluntarily agreed to return to Now Zealand with Detective Scott under the warrant from New Zealand held by him. This statement was written voluntarily by Win. Rogers, and signed by him and ins wife.

Edmund Walter Dinnie, fingerprint expert, said he had received a fanlight, and on it he found two really distinct finger marks. He had no doubt whatever that the marks on the sash wore made by prisoner’s hand. This was all the evidence.

The prisoners pleaded “not guilty” and reserved their defence. 'They were then formally committed for trial at the criminal sittings of the Supremo Court at Auckland, which are to commence on November 2lst.