FOUND GUILTY OF THEFT

Taranaki Daily News, 22 August 1930, Page 4

FOUND GUILTY OF THEFT

SHAW IN SUPREME COURT STOLE ARCHDEACON’S PROPERTY. REFORMATIVE DETENTION GIVEN. Found' guilty of the theft of a travelling rug, a ; pair'of golf shoes, a clock and a pair of trousers belonging to Archdeacon Frank’ George Evans, New Plymouth, Clarence Nelson John Shaw was _ yesterday sentenced to reformative detention for a period not’'exceeding two years. “If you work hard you can reduce that term considerably,”' said Mr. Justice Ostler to Shaw. The'date-of the offence was fixed by the charge between December 13, 1929, and January’ 14, 1930. Other articles alleged to have been stolen, but not produced in court, were a mathematical set, a propelling pencil and a ’fountain pen. The jury, however, deleted these from the charge-on which it based its verdict. The total value of ’ all the articles was given as £7. ' The jury was as follows: —Messrs. WD. Ansford (foreman), John Johnson, Robert Johnstone, James Austin, K. W. Jones, J. F. Corney, ( L. V. I. Hale, Charles Heatlev, G. H. Hogarth, A. J. Coad, E. R. Govenlock, J. E. W. Henchman, Outlining the case for the prosecution Mr. Grayling said that on December 14 Archdeacon and Mrs. Evans left their house in John Street for a holiday. Ihey had locked the place and given the keys to next door neighbours. On returning to New Plymouth they found the back door open. Later they missed the articles mentioned in the charges.

SHAW ARRESTED IN AUCKLAND. The theft was reported to the police but nothing more was heard about the matter till June -23 when . Shaw was arrested in Auckland in possession of the rug and shoes. He arrived in New Plymouth on July 9 and .Archdeacon and Mrs.. Evans were called to the' police station where they definitely identified the rug. It had been in their possession about 20 years. The shoes were of a special kind and therewere apparently not many of the sort about. They were purchased at McEwen’s shop, New Plymouth, in 1928 -and had been worn by the owner only about six times. The price was £2 ss. Their appearance at the police station indicated that they had been much worn. On July 11 Detective Meiklejohn interviewed Shaw regarding the rug and shoes. Shaw said he bought the shoes at either Deare’s or Hannah’s shop; in Stratford and paid about, £2. . No one had seen him with the rug ,pr, shoes in New Plymouth before he left. .He had bought the rug in Wellington' about two. years before. He said he left New Plymouth for Hastings and later Worked' on the Ruakawa station. Enquiries were. made at the Stratford .shops of Deare. and Hannah and it was found that neither shop had stocked the class of shoe in question. The clock was discovered in the station wbare in which Shaw had lived. Subsequently a clock was found under a tank stand about 10 yards away from the whare. ■ : On July 10. Detective Meiklejohn again saw Shaw’.' In reply to questions he said he got the ifbiisers •••about two years before "from a chap in the Red Cross Society.” He could not produce anyone who had seen him with the clock or trousers six months previously. He said Mrs. Shaw might have done so. Later he said Sister Gill gave him the trousers. He said he had bought the clock from Hughson’s, Ltd., Opuiiake, 12 months beiore, the price, 15s 6d, being booked to him. Thomas Hughson, junr., had sold him, the article, but /n being interviewed Hughson said a clock hat) never been booked to Shaw. / ' /

EXAMINED THE TROUSERS. The Archdeacon was shown the clock and trousers at the police station. He compared the trousers with a similar pair he had obtained .with a suit iu 1927 with two pairs. ije Examined the produced pair carefully for measurement and _ marks. They were the ,same size as the pair. The archdeacon said the clock was of . the same size; and make j tjs . the one he hard missed, but he could not swear it was he same one. 1 ... ' . Archdeacon Evans was cross-exammed. He said he had. been wearing clerical gray suits about 12 years. He sometimes gave clothes away to persons in need, but' he had never given any to the Red Cross Society or Salvation Army. He could not recall having given away a clerical grey suit. „ . In answer; to Mr. I. W. B. Roy, for accused, Mrs., Evans..,said she was certain the rug belonged to her because of its markings. She could not swear that the other articles produced were theirs, though they were similar. Other evidence was given by H. W. Broad, manager of the H.B. Clothing Factory, who said, the trousers corresponded with one of a pair sold to the archdeacon; by Constable Spelman, who arrested Shaw at. Point Chevalier; by Harry R. Acklon, cowboy, who found the clock at Ruakawa; by Thomas Alman, gardener, who found the trousers., Cross-examined Acklon and Alman said there were other men on the station. Alman admitted one man who left the station recently had burnt some rubbish before he left.

Detective Meiklejohn gave evidence regarding his'.investigations. Referring to the shoes;: which were size 9, he said he asked Shaw what ' size he took. He said he wore sevens, but' upon the defective looking at the shoes and then at Shaw’s feet Shaw added that he wore nines because his tegt had been frostbitten.

SISTER GILL GAVE SOME THINGS. During cross-examination the detective said he had ascertained from Sister Gill that on November. 27 she gave 20 pieces of men’s and women’s clothing to Shaw and his wife,, who were hard up and living beyond the Waiwakaiho River. Charles W.. Higgs, manager of Hannah’s Ltd., at Stratford, and Clifford 11. Deare, of Deare’s Ltd., eaid that no shoes of that brand and grade in question had been sold by their firms, in Stratford during the last four years. Thomas P. Hughson, junr., did not remember having sold Shaw a elock either for cash or credit.. Mr. Roy called no evidence and Mr. Grayling addressed the jury. Ml. Roy submitted there was absolutely no evidence connecting Shaw with, the mathematical set, fountain pen and pencil. He had denied having had them in one of the statements to the police. . lie suggested the Crown was asking , the-' jury to infer a good deal, in asking for a conviction for the theft of. these articles. . The position was that Archdeacon Evans had missed certain articles. Six months later Shaw, was.--arrested in possession .of the rug and shoes, ami it was Droved that

not long before that he had in his possession the! clock and’ trousers. ’ He had admitted he had had these. Before the Crown could establish Shaw’s guilt it must satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt the recovered articles were actually those stolen. Counsel contended as a defence to the case that the recovered articles, though similar in appearance, were not identical with the articles missed. Shaw had told the police in Auckland that he purchased the rug from a Wellington firm, but no effort had been made to follow that up to decide whether it was true. Though neither Deare nor Hannah stocked the particular type of ehoe at Stratford, both had said the kind shoe was not uncommon. Counsel went on to refer to weakness in the evidence concerning the other articles alleged to have been stolen. Shaw, he said had been frank about the matter. If there were a reasonable doubt Shaw was entitled io. the benefit of it.

SUMMING UP BY JUD-GE. His Honour gave the jury the usual warnings and explained the charges were alternative. Regarding the three articles that had not been found . Mr. Roy had suggested that it was not possible to convict him of the theft of these. The judge pointed oiit, however, that they -were entitled to assume, if they liked, that if Shaw took the four articles it was- a reasonable thing' to say he took the others. On the. other hand, if the jury were not satisfied that the pen, pencil and mathematical set were taken' by Shaw they could cross those articles out of, the charge. His Honour pointed out the strong/ identification of the rug by Archdeacon Evans. When ‘two of four articles were absolutely identified' and the others were described as. siniilar, was,' it not likely that the latter two ■ were also identical with the missing articles? . ’“.V,.. Possession ’of i , stolen property shortly after- 'the theft. was one of the commonest forms of . .'circumstantial evidence. If Shaw could ,not explain satisfactory where he'got .tii'em 'the jury was entitled to say he stole them. Speaking for .Shaw before the passing of .sentence Mr.. Roy said that unfortunately ‘fie had to say’that in 1921 at Christchurch, lie’'wap given two years’ probation .for ' tfieft and ‘.the, next’ - year .at Christchurch he was. given two years’ reformative treatment fog a'.'bfeach of probation... In ; addi-. tioh tfiere were, two recent convictions against ' him 'at', Auckland, but counsel asked that these-might be overlooked as they related to offences committed after the present,, offence. Otherwise since his release in 1922 Shaw had kept out of trouble.

He was a single man and a labourer or station rousabout.. At Christmas time — the period of the offence—he was unemployed and it was suggested this may have given some reason for his crime. For some years he. had been living with a woman to whom he was not married. She suffered a paralytic stroke some years ago and was now a.chronic case in the. New Plymouth Hospital. His Honour pointed out that Shaw had written to ’ the court stating that counsel had decided to withdraw from Shaw’s defence. However, at his Honour’s request counsel had consented to go on with the ease, with the result that everything possible to ;...y in Shaw’s favour had been said to the jury. The jury, his Honour considered, had acted rightly in returning a conviction.