BURIED MONEY LOOTED

Taranaki Daily News, 26 November 1926, Page 9

BURIED MONEY LOOTED

OLD MAN ROBBED AT PATEA CHARGES AGAINST SIGNAL FAIL. ACCUSED ACQUITTED BY JURY. Pleading guilty to charges of theft at Patea, in which two relatives of his were implicated and which they admitted, Joseph Signal was yesterday acquitted by the jury in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on a charge of being a party to the theft, and he was accordingly discharged. The jury reached their unanimous verdict after a short retirement of 35 minutes. The case was one in which an old man, Rasmus Rasmussen, living at Patea, buried a sum of £l6l in a tin in the ground at the back of his garden. One week-end Rasmussen was invited to Hawera by the accused Signal, who is Rasmussen’s stepson, and while he was away the money was stolen from his garden. Police investigations led to the arrest of accused, his wife (Ellen Signal) and his wife’s brother (Sass) on a joint charge of stealing the money. Sass and Ellen Signal both pleaded guilty, and between them restored a large part of the missing £-161. Signal pleaded not guilty, and stood his trial on Tuesday and yesterday morning. When the court adjourned on Tuesday, the case for the Crown had just concluded. Yesterday Mr. P. O’Dea, who appeared for the accused, intimated that he did not propose to call evidence, and the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston) said that he would not address the jury in view of the fact that he had already covered the ground fairly thoroughly. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. In opening his' defence, Mr. O'Dea explained that it was admitted that Sass visited Patea on the Saturday night and robbed the old man, and that Sass’ sister, who was also accused’s wife, obtained part of the proceeds and was implicated in the theft. But because Mrs. Signal was mixed up in the affair, that was no reason why Signal himself should have been a party to the robbery. Mrs. Signal would obviously, in the circumstances, not wish to tell her husband about her part in the business, and had freely admitted to the detective that her husband knew nothing about it. The only thing known against Signal was that he had been summoned for debt, but there were no doubt many respectable citizens in Taranaki who had been in a similar position’or would be if they were suddenly pressed to meet their obligations. Traversing the evidence of the witnesses in turn, Mr. O’Dea commented on the fact that there was a complete lack of evidence directly incriminating Signal in the robbery. It was urged that the fact that Signal took Rasmussen to Hawera, a thing he did very seldom, at the time that the robbery was committed, was something that weighed heavily in the balance against him, but it was only circumstantial evidence. Sass, counsel submitted, knew that Signal was bringing the old man to Hawera, and took advantage of the opportunity to go to Patea on a bicycle and commit the robbery. It was quite a natural thing that Sass should sleep in Signal’s bed at Carman’s bach, knowing that Signal was in Hawera and would not require it. Referring to the conversation between Signal and Martin, Mr. O’Dea asked the jury to realise that such conversation was common amongst men in a joking sort of way, and could not be taken seriously. Was it not quite likely that Martin joked about the matter himself? But it was a strange thing that Martin should immediately rush off to the police as soon as he heard about the robbery. What man under ordinary circumstances was anxious to inform on a mate to the police? Most people were anxious to avoid the publicity of a court. Surely there was a real and substantial doubt about accused’s participation in the crime that entitled him to an acquittal. JUDGE’S DIRECTION TO THE JURY. Although the accused was arraigned on four counts, the jury need concern themselves only with the one relating to the theft of £l6l, said His Honour, in giving his direction to the jury. The law on the matter was quite plain. A person to be guilty of theft need not necessarily be present at the time the crime was committed. He was also guilty if he encouraged, aided, counselled or procured the theft. There were certain facts in the case before the jury that were indisputable. It was plain that the theft was committed while the accused had the old man Rasmussen with him at Hawera. Probably, it would occur to the jury that part of the plot might have been to get the old man away while the robbery was committed. It was plain, also, that Signal’s wife was a party to the crime, and had evidently assisted Sass in getting the money. It was quite clear that the movements of the accused on the week-end of the robbery fitted in and synchronised with those of Sass in robbing Rasmussen. It was quite clear that this might be a mere coincidence, and it was the jury’s duty to view the action in the setting of all the circumstances. It was for them to decide whether or not accused’s actions were a mere coincidence or were intentional.

Accused knew that Sass was in Patea on the Saturday morning, though there was no evidence to show that Sass knew Signal had invited Rasmussen to Hawera for the week-end. A rather peculiar point about Martin’s evidence was that it was corroborated by Signal’s brother. The evidence relating to jokes passing between the two meh was of little value, but the conversations were important in that they recorded the cupidity with which accused regarded the old man’s hoarded treasure. The whole case resolved itself into the question of whether the actions of Sass and of the accused on the week-end of the theft were a coincidence or had some deeper relationship. The jury retired at 11.15 a.m., and after 35 minutes’ deliberation returned with a verdict of not guilty. The accused was accordingly discharged.