“GUILTY ON ALL ©SUITS”

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1929, Page 5

“GUILTY ON ALL ©SUITS”

VERDICT AGAINST L. E. SMITH WAS INVOLVED IN 14 BURGLARIES. SENTENCE WILL BE PASSED LATER JUDGE SAYS EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR “Guilty on all counts” was the verdict returned yesterday against Leonard .Edward Smith (aged 25), after the jury had considered for 40 minutes charges involving 14 burglaries in New Plymouth and Inglewood between July 13 and August 18. Mr. Justice McGregor remanded Smith for sentence. The trial commenced early on Thursday, and was concluded at 5.15 p.m. yesterday. The jury was out till 5.55 p.m With the exception of three in which the allegation was “intent to commit a crime,” all the charges involved breaking, entering and theft by night. The total gain from the offences was £l7 Is. Bd., which was shared with Raymond J. V. Elliott (aged 18), who pleaded guilty previously. Mr. C. H. Weston prosecuted, and Mr. A. A. Bennett represented Smith. Continuing his evidence. Raymond J. V. Elliott referred to the attempted entrance to Stainton and Coy.’s garage on tlie night of July 27. Smith told him he wanted to get the cash box and asked for the use of a crowbar. Elliott and his young lady drove round to the place with Smith. Smith returned to the car later, and said the door was too stout for him to open, and that he had hurt himself when he slipped from the downpipe up which ho had climbed. He had been disturbed by someone entering through the front door. Smith later went back for the crowbar, ’which he had left behind him. The next "episode described jby Elliott was the alleged entrance to the New Plymouth Harbour Board’s store on the night of August 7. He met L. E. Smith and Stroud on the corner of Hobson Street. The three of them and Eileen Brosnan drove to Mikotahi. Stroud, who had been drinking, remained in the car, and Smith and he climbed over the fence and cut the lock with the bolt cutters. Smith could not find any gelignite as he had expected. He took only one detonator, because they were dangerous things to carry. On returning to the car they gave the detonator to Stroud to hide.

RECOVERY OF THE HACKSAW. Elliott told the court that on one occasion ho and Smith drove in the direction of Waitara to recover the hacksaw and blades used in opening Abraham’s safe. Smith remarked that they were lucky to. find them, as they would have made good clues for the police. He met Smith again on Saturday night, August 10. Smith said he knew Charles Swanson did not have a safe in his premises in Rangi Street, but there was a cash box in the office. They drew the car up near the building, and Smith and he cut the padlock off the door and threw it in the river. With a tyre lever Smith opened a small sliding window and several cupboards, and returned to Elliott with a cash box. They found about £2. One or two promissory notes and cheques were put back in the box, which was thrown in the Te Henui River. The money was divided. His Honour: And who got the lion's share? Elliott:' Smith, sir. On August 17. about 8 p.m. ho met Smith at the A.M.P. billiard saloon, which was a “kind of rendezvous for them” about this time. Later that night, they broke into R. S. Richardson’s premises in Dawson Street. Smith opened the door easily with a tyre lever. Smith found no money in the Tucker till, but took a tyre pressure gauge from it and gave it to Elliott to keep. Smith kept a key taken from the till and threw it away in a big patch of grass opposite the brewery. The same night they went to Fitzroy. Eileen Brosnan was with them. They : found, however, that they could not remove a safe they discovered in the office of L. H. Hall, coal merchant. They dropped the girl on the way into town. At I Smith’s suggestion the two men returned to the corner of Hall’s street to see whether the attempt on the safe was discovered. They drove round the block. Someone was smoking a cigarette in Hall’s doorway. Elliott then described the entrance to the warehouse of John Avery, Ltd., on the night of August 18, with intent to commit a crime. Though they cut the locks, they could not open the door, because there was something very heavy behind it. A woollen glove produced in court belonged to Smith, said Elliott. He had left it in witness’s car with the other one, which had since been lost. Smith wore them' to prevent the transfer of finger prints. On.one occasion Smith said the water in the river would wash the finger prints off a cash box that had been thrown in. ADMITTED THIRTY-FIVE OFFENCES Mr. Bennett: You yourself have pleaded guilty to about 35 offences, mostly in July and August, and including practically all the charges now before the court ? —Yes. You have asserted that in those crimes you were associated with five young men living in New Plymouth and three young men of Stratford? —Yes. You have asserted that different members of this band have been present on every occasion when you committed a crime? —I have. In those crimes you invariably used a motor car belonging to your father or yourself, or belonging to some third person and obtained from your father’s garage ?—Yes. Elliott admitted that the tools used belonged either to himself or his father. The only articles that he asserted belonged to Smith were the glove and the electric torch. He admitted saying in the lower court that he had met Smith “somewhere in town” on the night they visited Newton Allen’s shop. Counsel: Then how was it that yesterday you were positive you met him at the dance at the Workers’ Social Hall? —I am just telling of the incident as far as I can remember. Further cross-examination was directed to show discrepancies between Elliott’s statements to the police and in the lower court and his evidence in the Supreme Court. With his Honour's permission Mr. Bennett put in the police statements by Elliott that were affixed to the file concerning the charges against Elliott. Mr. Bennett pointed out that in the police statement concerning the affair at Hall’s (Fitzroy) Elliott had not said he had gone back a second time with Smith.

On the contrary, he had said that Smith wanted him to go back, but he refused and, on Smith becoming annoyed, he went home. Counsel: Which is correct, that statement, or your evidence to-day?—My evidence to-day. His Honour: But wo have not heard the whfilo statement. Mr. Bennett then read the police statement through, after which Elliott repeated that his latest evidence was correct. His Honour remarked that it meant, probably, that Elliott had not completely stated tlie facts to the police. Mr. Weston: Would it have been possible to have done any of the 14 burglaries you have described by yourself? Elliott: Assistance was nearly always required. EVIDENCE OF MRS. ELLIOTT. Eileen Elliott (formerly Brosnan) said sho had married Elliott since his arrest.- She . was nearly 16 years of ao-e. His Honour (astonished): You are not yet 16! Mrs. Elliott: No, sir. It was then disclosed that her husband was 18 and Smith 25. When describing the visit to Newton Alien’s store, she said that on Smith returning to the car with a biscuit tin of cigarettes, she had “gone off at him for pinching things.” He replied that he would get some chocolates for her and that no one could say he was afraid to go back. “It is a great joke doing this in Meiklcjohn’s district?” said Smith. “And who is Meiklejohn?” asked the J udge. ; “The detective,” said Mrs. Elliott, who added that he lived in tho same street as the shop, on the opposite side of the road and some way nearer town. She said sho had told Smith she did not want the chocolates. She corroborated her husband’s evidence concerning the burglaries at which she had been present. Mr. Bennett: From June, 1929, till the time of your marriage you were fairly constantly in the company of Elliott at night?—Yec. You were in his company when he ’committed practically all of’ the crimes to which he has pleaded guilty?—Yes. Further cross-examination concerned the various incidents described by Mrs. Elliott in her main evidence. EVIDENCE OF DETECTIVE. Detective Meiklejohn said he saw the safe on August 30 and with the assistance of Abraham rescued it from water six to eight feet in depth. He discovered it four days before the arrest- of Elliott and Smith when he was looking for property stolen by Mullally and White. On December 2 Sergeant McGregor and he saw" Smith at the East End pavilion and told him that Elliott had made a statement implicating him in connection with the attempted removal of a safe from Hall’s premises at Fitzroy. In addition the detective said it was alleged he had been connected with other burglaries about the town. Smith, who made no reply, was afterwards taken to the police station, where he was shown Elliott’s statement about the offence at Hall’s. Smith was warned that any- ■ thing he might say would be taken down and given in evidence against him. “It will, will it?” said Smith. “Then I shall say nothing.” He made no reply when told that Mrs. Elliott’s statementcorroborated that of her husband, and when Elliott’s statement was read'to him he made no reply. He was then arrested.

On September 4 the detective again saw him and read over to him several statements by Elliott. When the detective read the part where Elliott said Smith had gone to Mikotahi to get the *detdnator, Smith said: “He says I went over, did he?” The only other statement commented on was that about Abraham’s safe. Smith said: “He’s trying to pull me in on that, is he?” Witness said: “Yes. You don’t suggest he could carry the safe by himself?” Smith said: “I don’t think he could.” Elliott was called in and asked if his statements were true. He replied that they were. Witness showed Smith a torch he had found in Elliott’s room after Elliott had gone out and asked him if it was his. He replied it was like it and he did not know where his was. He did not think he had left it in Elliott’s car. He examined the torch, pulled out the battery, and said it was not the battery left in his torch. He wiped the torch carefully, taking care to leave no fingerprints before he put it on the table. He was later charged with the other offences. To Mr. Bennett: He, personally, did not give Smith the usual warning at the East End. Sergeant McGregor corroborated the evidence of the detective. When Smith was going up the stairs at the police station he said to Elliott: “Say nothing; know nothing.” This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Bennett said he would not call evidence., . His Honour; Beyond what you have called ? Mr. Bennett: Yes, no further evidence, Your Honour.

ADDRESS TO THE JURY, Counsel said the question the juryhad to answer was whether there was sufficient and reliable evidence on which to convict Smith. He submitted that the evidence of Elliott and his wife was both unreliable and unconvincing. Owin<r to the. source from which it sprang they should hesitate very much before depending on it for a conviction. Counsel proceeded to show that certain discrepancies between the evidence of Elliott and that of other witnesses showed the unreliability of Elliott’s evidence. In refusing to make a statement to the detective Smith was acting perfectly within his rights, as any person accused of a crime would be. Elliott had himself confessed to a large number of crimes. He was married to a girl under 16 who at the time in question .had accompanied him on practically every night trip in a car containing house-breaking instruments. His Honour would doubtless direct the jury on the question whether Mrs. Elliott or her husband were accomplices. His Honour: I don’t think, that enters into this case, as there is sufficient evidence to consider apart from that. Mr. Bennett said that Mrs. Elliott had gone with the band _ night after ni"ht without protesting at the thefts. His Honour: That is not correct. She protested the first night. Counsel: Yes, but she protested then and continued to go with them afterwards, night after night. His Honour: And what else would you expect a girl of 15 to do 1 You must not mis-state the evidence. Counsel: I would not do that, sir. Counsel proceeded to elaborate his contention that the evidence of the Elliotts was unreliable and warned the jury about the danger of relying on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices. He pointed out that there was no suggestion that any of the implements or

the spoila had been recovered from Smith. They had all been found in Elliott’s posaesflion. Elliott and his wife had certainly told their stories very well, but that was to be expected. They were there and knew all about it. The question was not were these burglaries committed, or how, but “Who did them ?” Mr. Weston pointed out to the jury the importance of the statements made to the police by Elliott before he knew of the details of the stories from the other side. Yet the two sets of stories tallied and were later corroborated by Mrs. Elliott. He submitted it would have been impossible for two young people deliberately to fabricate their stories. Would it have been possible for them to have changed the details throughout the 14 stories to include two persons instead of one in each case? THE JUDGE SUMS UP. The judge, in his summing-up, said the trial had taken a long time, and the jury had heard a great mass of evidence from a great many witnesses. He thcftight, however, that when they considered the evidence they would find their answer very easily. He pointed out there was no reason to convict on all the charges, if they thought otherwise. They had to decide whether Smith was innocent, whether he was being accused wrongly, which he found very difficult to believe. The question was: Had Smith been proved guilty by reliable evidence? Dealing with the Crown case, his Honour said robberies had taken place. In some of them two men must have worked in collaboration. Two persons had been sworn to be implicated. One was Elliott, who had pleaded guilty, and the other was Smith. His Honour said it was his duty to warn them that it was unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices, but in this case it was not necessary tb rely on the evidence of Elliott alone. “It seems to me there is uncontradicted evidence of guilt quite apart from Elliott’s evidence,” continued his Honour. Mr. Bennett, he said, had said that Smith had a right to refuse to make a statement to the police, but he suggested that the man who did so, thus reserving his defence, laid himself open to a presumption of guilt; an innocent person would explain. Then, in. addition to Smith not saying anything when charged by the detective, he had actually gone so far as to tell Elliott to “say nothing and know nothing.” “Is that the attitude of an innocent man, or of a criminal?” asked his Honour. “I leave it to you, gentlemen.” It had been suggested that the evidence of the unfortunate youth Elliott w r as a mass of perjury, continued the judge. But why should Elliott, when he was awaiting sentence for one series of crimes, desire to add perjury to them? Why? He would leave the answer to the jury. He quoted from Mrs. Elliott’s evidence to show that Smith .had persisted in his efforts to get this young man to go with him on the expeditions. ■ Mrs. El-

liott, a girl of 15, had protested the first time, when the cigarettes were stolen, and Smith had said he would, go back and obtain some chocolates for her. She had said, however, that she did not want them. BEGINNING OF CRIMES. “That shows how this dreadful business started, by going to this store and stealing a few cigarettes and chocolates,” said the judge. “Thus these young people were gradually accustomed to the carrying on of crime. It is is plain that Elliott did not start it. Then who did?” It was known, he said, that Elliott and Smith had been seen together in a car, and in the street. There was the strongest evidence that they had been consorting. Constables Mitchell and Sturmey had corroborated the statements of Elliott. According to the detective, Smith when told he was under suspicion, had made no reply. Was that the action of an innocent man? What would the jurymen have done under similar circumstances? Smith’s action seemed to have been that of a guilty man who had made up his mind to hold his tongue. Then, when the detective had suggested that surely Smith would not say that Elliott could have moved the safe by himself, Smith had replied: “1 don’t •think so.” How would he know the weight of the safe if he had not been there? Surely that remark was strong evidence against Smith. He had adopted the attitude throughout of saying nothing and knowing nothing, and that was not the attitude of an innocent man, | but of a hardened criminal. It was for the jury to say whether Smith was the master mind in carrying out these crimes. °Not one single witness has been called for the defence,” said the judge, “and yet, for an innocent man it would have been the easiest thing in the world to have cleared himself. If he was not at. one of the places as alleged, he could even now have proved an alibi that he was at a billiard saloon or one of the other places he frequents. But, no; he has known for months of the dates on which he was alleged to have participated in the robberies, yet he has made no attempt to prove an alibi. If one alibi had been proved the whole prosecution would have fallen like a house of cards. Why has he not proved an alibi?” Smith, suggested his Honour, had come to the court to say nothing and know nothing. What had been his attitude throughout the trial? His Honour said lie had been watching him in the dock. He had not appeared ashamed, he had smiled occasionally, and he had not been, unduly affected. Elliott, on the other hand, had presented a picture of abject shame in the witness box, yet he had told his story well. And the same could be said of his young wife, this girl of 15 who had literally fallen among thieves. Yet Smith had continued to know nothing and say nothing. Was it not obvious that the man who had helped in the’ robberies had a stronger mind than Elliott, that he had used Elliott’s tools and Elliott’s motdr-

car? His Honour pointed out that Elliott was 18 years old and Smith 25, and the latter could have cleared himself in a quarter of an hour by proving an alibi. Was the jury not satisfied that Elliott was telling the truth? The suggestion that he was deliberately. implicating Smith could be put aside. Elliott had confessed his crime, and would, be sentenced. Again, was it likely that Mrs. Elliott would perjure herself to put an innocent man in gaol? The evidence seemed clear to his Honour, and he considered there should not be much doubt what the jury’s finding should be. If they were satisfied with the evidence the jurymen must find Smith guilty, if not, they were entitled to acquit him. The jury returned its verdict/ and. .was finally discharged.