THEFT CHARGE DENIED

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1929, Page 11

THEFT CHARGE DENIED

HAWERA SHOP MISSES SUITS YOUNG ELTHAM MAN COMMITTED. BURGLARIES IN MAY RECALLED. RACING GEAR ALLGEDLY STOLEN.

Patterns - were compared and samples of doth matched in an endeavour to establish the identity of a blue serge suit and a plum-coloured overcoat at the Eltham Court yesterday. Makers’ marks, index numbers, buttons and linings were submitted to close inspection, and as a result James Mullally, a young man of High Street, Eltham, was committed under bail for trial to the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on charges of breaking, entering and theft. The theft of stable gear was also denied.

Mullally denied charges that at Haweca on May 19 he did by night break and enter the shop of Schneideman and Co. and steal six suits and six overcoats, valued at £7B 17s fid, and cheques and money to the amount of £9l 9s fid. He was charged also with receiving a suit and an overcoat valued at £l3 4s fid well knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. Detective A. B. Mciklcjohn conducted the prosecution, while Mr. A. Chrystal appeared for accused. Magnus Manson, suit specialist, Wellington, employed by Schneideman a,nd Co., said on May 19 he took over from Mr. Thompson the management of the firm’s temporary shop in Hawera. At that time the shop had been open probably a little more than two weeks. Stocktaking revealed that everything was correct and the takings, consisting of £5O 3s Gd in cheques, £34 10s in notes, and 4s fid in silver, were transferred to his care. The handing over took place about noon on the 19th, a Sunday, but before the men left the shop the takings were placed for safety in an overcoat pocket. About 2.30 p.m. witness returned to the shop for a pencil. Then nothing seemed to have been disturbed. DISCOVERY OF THEFT. On opening the shop on Monday morning, however, he could not find tlie overcoat in which the money had been placed. He immediately wired Mr. Thompson at New Plymouth and informed the police. When. Mr. Thompson arrived stock was taken again and tlie loss of six suite, six overcoats and one pair of trousers was discovered. “That, of course, included the takings,” added witness.

Witness gave details of the size, shape' and style of the plum-colourcd overcoat in which the takings had been placed. A sample of the material had been handed to the police. Details were given of a blue serge suit, a sample of which material had also been given to the police. The number on the inside tag of the suit was 1246. Witness was handed a suit which he examined, explaining that both inside and outside tags had been cut off the coat, but the factory mark on the hip pocket was still visible, though an attempt had apparently been made to rub it out. Witness identified the suit by other means, stating definitely that it was originally the property of his firm. The shop was secured by a patent lock on Hie front door and an ordinary lock on the rear. Entrance had obviously been effected at the front door. He could not recollect ever having sold such a suit to accused, nor did the name Mullally appear on any sale sheet. It was the custom of the firm to enter the names of purchasers of suits on the stock books.

Howard R. Cook, secretary of the firm, in evidence said the number appearing on the hip pockets of Schneideman trousers were recorded at the factory When the suit, was manufactured it was given another number which was recorded in a second stock book. The number on the hip pocket of the suit in court agreed with the records of the firm relating to one of the suits missing from the Hawera shop. MOTHER WAS WORRIED. . Mary Elizabeth Mullally, mother .of accused, a widow residing in High Street, Eltham, remembered the finding by the police of the blue serge suit in her house. The coat was in a warbrobe and the vest and trousers under the mattress of accused’s bed. For some time previous to the visit of the police, she remembered, accused had been wearing a plum-coloured overcoat, but she could not swear it was of the same material produced. Her son had worn tlie overcoat regularly for about a fortnight. Accused was away at the time of the police visit, but that cvenino- she questioned him. “Don’t worry about the suit, mother,” he had said, “I bought and paid for it.” Witness said accused further remarked, “That is the cheapest overcoat I ever bought. I paid only £2 14s for it.” Witness said she still worried about the coat, and asked her son if he had a receipt. Mullally replied that he would look for his receipt, but had not produced it 1 . In consequence of other overcoats being seized by the police she took the one in the possession of her son to Mrs. Mullins’ place, two doors away, but after her son was' arrested she cut it up and burned it. in the copper fire. - To Detective Meiklejohn she said her son had the suit when he returned from Hawera about two months ago. Eileen Mullins remembered Mrs. Mullally’s bringing her the coat. In evidence she said it had a tear in the lining under the armpit. It seemed to have been worn a fair amount but was not an old one.

Witness examined Hie sample of cloth and adhered to the opinion that the coat had a redder appearance, though she would describe it as plum coloured. When she heard of the young man’s arrest she returned tho overcoat to Mrs. Mullally. Further evidence regarding the alleged thefts was given by Detective Meiklejohn. On July 6, in company with Constable Townsend, he took possession of the suit from accused's room. Two days later he told Mullally about having found the suit and was told, that it had been purchased at a shop in Union Street, Hawera. Mr. Chrystal entered a formal protest against this statement on the ground that accused had not been warned at the time. Accused was said to have made. r no re-

ply to witness’ query as to the price paid, but said he had owned the suit for some time. He had no receipt. NO TRACE OF OVERCOAT. On July 4, witness said, he interviewed accused on another matter and noticed accused was then wearing a double-breasted, plum-coloured overcoat similar to the sample of material produced. No trace of this overcoat was found during the search of the house or on the occasion of another search on July 8. Witness had not seen the-over-coat since July 4. On July 15, as a result of information received, he accompanied Constable Townsend to tho home of Mrs. Mullins, and then to accused’s home. Under a search warrant another search was the overcoat, but no trace could be found. The following day the detective again saw accused, who said he had not left 4he overcoat at Mrs. Mullins’, and reiterated that he had bought the overcoat along with the suit “from a joker in Hawera” for- £B. Accused would not volunteer the name of this person. Later, at the New Plymouth gaol, accused was shown the samples of ma- . terial, and was told they represented the suiting and the cloth of the overcoat. After being warned accused said, “I bought the overcoat and the suit and the price was about £2 145.” Mullally was charged with stealing, some time in April, an exercise saddle, a pair of horse knee boots, one pair of horse shin and ankle boots, and a. scrim house cover, to tlie total value of £8 Ite, the property of Richard Brough, Hawera. On or about May 21, he was alleged to have stolen a pair of trotting boots, a pair of shin and ankle boots, and a bridle bit, valued at £4 12s Gd, the property of James R, Corrigan, Hawera. Accused pleaded not guilty and on these charges was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. After the February races at Hawera Richard Brough, horse trainer, told tho court, he missed an exercise saddle, a bridle, and a pair of horse knee boots from his stable in Egmont Street. He identified the saddle easily enough because his name was stamped on tho girth and in other places. Likewise the knee boots, ankle boots and other trotting gear were recognised at once and identified. Mullally had no authority to remove these articles. The articles mentioned in the second charge were • identified by James Bullock, another horse trainer, of Hawera. The ankle boots he had altered especially to fit a certain horse, while two suspension buckles had been attached as extra fittings to the knee boots by witness. Mullally had no authority for having the gear in his possession. Dealing with the alleged thefts of racing gear, Detective Meiklejohn said on July 19 he took possession of a quantity. of racing gear at Mullally’s home, including those articles produced in court. The following day he saw Mullally at the New Plymouth gaol and showed him a list of the gear. Mullally had said: “That is my property; I paid for it.” Accused was warned before making a reply. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr, Chrystal entered an objection to. all tho statements alleged to have been mado by accused to the detective in connection with the clothing charges and those pertaining to the racing gear.