HOSTILE CROWN WITNESS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 966, 8 May 1930, Page 10

HOSTILE CROWN WITNESS

BURGLARY AT THAMES HAS SEQUEL MAN ON TRIAL The hostility of a Crown witness, a man serving 18 months’ reformative detention for breaking and entering a Thames drapery shop, to give evidence against a man alleged to be an accomplice, was a feature of the trial of Joseph Sullivan in the Supreme Court today. Mr. Justice Herdman was on the Bench. QULLIVAN, aged 40, was charged with breaking and entering the shop of Martin Brothers, and stealing £33 15s 6d on March 8. Alternative charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime and of stealing the money were also preferred. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, conducted the Crown case, and Mr. A. IT. Johnstone defended the accused. A partner in the drapery firm of Martin Brothers, of Thames, William Alexander Martin, said he locked the premises shortly before one o’clock on March 8. That night, after attending the pictures, he visited the shop to have a look round, and found the hasp holding the bolt inside had been broken away. A sum of between £33 and £35, representing £5 10s or £6 worth of half-sovereigns, a £5 note and the remainder in singles, had been stolen from a drawer in the office. RECC JNISED VOICE For 14 or 15 years witness was acquainted with Sullivan, who had visited the shop the day before the robbery. Sullivan, who was not a frequent customer, bought some underwear. After arrest, Sullivan, who was released on bail, telephoned witness, who recognised the voice. Sullivan said witness knew the trouble he was in and that if it was correct witness would lose anything. “You know I wouldn’t beat you for a penny,” Sullivan told witness. Under cross-examination. Martin said that Sullivan was a draper by trade and accused had worked with him in the same shop. Both Sullivan and Arns were given to drink, and when the former telephoned his voice was very thick. August Arns said that lie hazily recollected entering the shop in company with Sullivan. but was not sure whether he met accused in town or at the latter’s house. He had been drinking heavily and was almost in the Jj.T.’s and could not recollect where the meeting with Sullivan took place. As a result of Arns’s persisting in statements he “could not remember.” tlio Crown Prosecutor was granted permission to treat the witness as hostile. Mr. Meredith: When did you lose your memory?—l was on the verge of the D.T.’s. Uut you are not on the verge of the LXT.s now?—My memory is all right now. b You have given evidence in the Thames Court?—Yes. Your memory wasn’t defective then? —Mot too good. I. ou met Sullivan at his house at 4 a m. and under an arrangement made the previous day?—l may have. JUDGE'S COMMENT ‘T may as well point out that you are not to trifle with this case, if you don t speak the truth there may be trouble,” commented his Honour. Arns added that he and Sullivan went to a plumber's and picked up a crowbar outside the back door, and thence to Martin’s shop. -Hr. Meredith: Who went into Martin's? You or Sullivan?—l think we both went in.

Arns said he prised open the door and they got £34 from an office drawer They proceeded to witness's home where the money was divided up, witness receiving the sovereigns, postal notes arid notes. Sullivan received some of the money, though witness did not know the amount. The previous day Sullivan said he intended going to see some clothing and to buv some. Mr. Meredith: Do you say he was only going to buy clothing?—That was the inference I took. ou swore in the lower court that Sullivan said he was going to look at the gear and have a look round at the same time?—No.

And didn't you swear he told you he had had a look round and everything was all right?—l can’t remember. I have been drinking heavily. ‘‘l met Sullivan with his parcel and he said everything was all right,” said witness. Mr. Meredith: What was all right?— The clothing, I suppose. Mr. Johnstone: Did you have a drink at every corner?—Pretty well. His Honour: Did you cover the whole 14?—I may have. Mr. Johnstone: You were then almost on the verge of the D.T.’s?—Yes. ‘‘How could you tell when you reached that stage? Have you had them before?" asked bis Honour. “No: but I've seen a lot of men who imagine they saw things,” retorted witness; IMAGINATION ? His Honour: I suppose you imagined you got into the place and took the money and that wasn't a dream, was it? “No,” replied witness. The police, Arns said. had questioned him in gaol and obtained a statement from him to the effect that he found a number of postal notes. Dater he was again questioned, and on a third occasion the detectives pointed out to him that some of the money was traced to a woman in Thames, and the suggestion was made that her name would be brought into the case and he made a further statement implicating Sullivan. Joyce Beatrice Griffin, an employee in Martin Brothers’ shop, said Sullivan had visited the shop on March 7 and passed the office and inspected some women’s hats. Constable Nicol said that in gaol he heard Arns tell Sullivan he was leaving on bail and he could get the money somehow and pay his share. Sulli- \ ;:n replied “I can pay my share, too. The hotelkeeper has money of mine.” which witness later verified. Witness asked Sullivan if he had anything to do with the affair, and accused said he was so drunk he did not know where he went. Mr. Johnstone: Did you not tell Arns that the money had been traced to a woman?—Y'es. Did you go to his cell and question? No; I don’t recollect ever doing it. The two men were both drunk for days before their arrest. For the defence, Mr. Johnstone submitted the evidence was hopelessly inadequate to establish accused’s guilt and the only verdict that could be arrived at was not guilty. In j warning the jury against acceptance of the evidence of an accomplice, counsel pointed out that Arns was proved not only to be a criminal but a liar. Accused had been drinking heavily: he had been a fool and had paid heavily for his folly but there was no justification for branding him as a knave. The jury retired at 12.45 o’clock.