COWLING FOUND GUILTY

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1933, Page 9

COWLING FOUND GUILTY

.RECEIVING, BUT NOT THEFT SENSATIONAL TURN TO THE CASE. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JURY LIST. Sensational suggestions regarding his use of a jury list were made in questions put to Frederick John Cowling in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. He was found guilty of knowingly receiving as stolen property four doors and seven window sashes valued at £9 19s and belonging to the State Advances superintendent. This was an alternative charge to one of theft of the property at Westown about May 26, 1932, it being alleged that it had come from a house on the Omata Road since burned. The jury retired at 4.55 p.m. and returned at 5.45. Detective P. Kearney said that on May 16 with Detective Meiklejohn, Sergeant T. I; McGregor and Constable Mitchell he executed a'search warrant on Cowling at his property at Westown. When told of the warrant Cowling jumped into a rage and wanted to know what justification they had for searching. The police were always on to him, he said. Told by the detective that a wardrobe door had -been traced to McKay’s shop and that: it had been sold by Cowling and was supposed to come from Parkes’ hoUse, Cowling said, "That door’s all right. It didn’t come from Parkes’ house.” He would not say. where it came from. He said he had been told by his solicitor to tell them nothing. In fact' the words used were to “treat them with contempt” and order them off the place. Shown the warrant signed by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., Cowling said he did not take any notice of that as “you fellows can type one of those when you like find bring it along.” “BECAME VERY HOSTILE.” Cowlipg had grown very hostile and both-Sergeant McGregor and Detective Meiklejohn tried to calm him. He told Detective Meiklejohn that he "had had enough of him, over the sheep-stealing case , and that he did not . know a ewe . from a wether. .He produced a newspaper- clipping headed “Rotten to the Core,” referring to a Sheffield police case in England. He said, after hesitation, that he had bought- the wardrobe door at' Nolan’s mart about three years ago, When a man named Mynott worked there. A Chinese had bought doors at the same time. 'He had not obtained a receipt. He thought he had bought the wardrobe door at the same time as some other doors and’ a window. Told that they wanted to look at some doors and window sashes in tiie house, Cowling.said they were all right and the police were not going to look at them,. He had quietened down considerably.' They got .him inside and he was asked where he \ got one of the doors. He said he hadmade it himself about spc months before and that he had stained it himself about a month ago, Lobb having hung it He said he had made the bathroom door himself from three to six months-before. There were stain .marks on the floor here, as there were by the other door. He thought he had got the glass in the door from Jones and Sandford, but later said it might have been from Odlins, as that was the billy place from which he had bought glass. Cowling made a similar explanation concerning the scullery door. He was told it was alleged the doors came from Parkes’ house. He would not say where; he .got' the timber for the doors. He would not say; it was the detective’s business to find out. “Why the should I tell you?” he asked. He still refused to explain when told that any honest explanation would be investigated. .Cowling asked them if there was anything else they wanted to see him about, as he. had to go to Waitara. The detective pointed out : three window sashes in one part of the house and four in another. Cowling, would not say where they came from, but on being told of the allegation that they came from Parkes’ house. p he said he made them himself; he would not say where he got the timber; it. was their business to find out ' ' ‘

REMOVAL RESENTED.

Cowling becamte very, hostile when told that they intended to remove the four doora and seven window sashes. He said the fittings were not going to leave the place, but <witness told him they were going to take them and that he could call his solicitor if he liked. Mr. Kirkby later arrived. In the meantime Detectives Kearney and Meiklejohn proceeded with the removal. Cowling was left outside with the sergeant and constable. Presently Cowling rushed in in a rage and said, “I thought I told you chaps those doors were not to leave the place?” He was told he had better be quiet and that if he made any trouble he could be arrested for resisting the police? '■ ~ : “You two chaps will wake up in your beds one i morning to find yourselves dead,” said Cowling before he was got outside and shortly before the arrival of Mr. Kirkby. To Mr. Bennett: Cowling was in a very bad temper when witness spoke to him about the first door. He was no better: when .Detective' Meiklejohn tried to reason with him. He said he had made, all the doors and sashes himself. Counsel: That explanation was obviously untrue? They were factory-made? The Yes. Counsel: Did you point out to Cowling that ; they. were factory-made? The detective: Yes. Counsel: You did not say that in your examination-in-chief or in the lower court? Kearney said he may have missed that. He did not warn Cowling. He knew Cowling was apxious to submit his defence to the lower Court and /be dealt with there, but the magistrate . >' in his discretion sent the case for trial. f Sergeant T. I. McGregor, Wairoa, said i that bn the morning of May 16 he aci companied Detective Meiklejohn, Detec- • tive Kearney and Constable Mitchell to f. Cowling's house. He supported the evidence of Detective Kearney. Cowling became very hostile, he said. He called the police “a lot of rotters” and went away and produced a cutting from an English paper .to the effect that the police were rotten to the core. Cowling said he had sold some of the doors and a window sash that he bought at. Nolan’s to V. C. Davies, nurseryman. Cowling was very hostile when Detective Kearney told him he was going ■to take-possession of some of the doors and window sashes. He said, “A man ought to shoot the lot of you.” He said .he had plenty of ammunition to do' it. Cowling .kept going into a whare, where he had some firearms hanging on the wall, arid owing to his hostile manner witness kept close to him all the time. •

“I told him it was foolish of him to talk like that,” continued the sergeant. •‘He seemed blind to reason and Detective Kearney explained he could ring his solicitor if he liked and .1 explained that- if he wanted a solicitor I would have, him communicated with.” At Cowlings request .Mr. Kirkby was communicated, with. He was still very hostile and . said, "You fellows will wake up some morning in bed and find yourselves dead.'' f

Mrs. Cowling asked Cowling what all

the trouble was about and he said the police wanted to know where he got some of the doors and window sashes in the house. She said, “Well, can’t you teti them?” He said, “Why should I? It’s their job to find out.” She said, “Surely there is no harm in telling them. He said “You know.” She said, “No, I can’t explain anything about them. You never tell me where you get anything you bring home.” In answer to the sergeant she said she could not say whether Cowling made the doors and windows. He was always making something outside, but she did not know what.

For the defence Mr. Bennett submitted it was’theft or nothing. He asked that the second count should be withdrawn from the jury on the ground that there was no evidence to support “receiving.” His Honour ruled otherwise, however, saying that there was evidence of his recent possession of the joinery, which was sufficient.

Mr. Bennett said Cowling woud definitely deny he stole or “knowingly received” the doors. It was true that at one stage he was aggressive and hostile and said things he should not have said, but, that, did not brand him necessarily as a thief. COWLING’S EVIDENCE. Cowling gave evidence. He said he lived with his wife and child on a 50-acres farm at Westown. He did not steal any of the doors or sashes from Parkes’ house. He recalled Gibson building the house as an employee of Jones and Sandford. He was in the house only once, in 1930. He admitted he sold a door to McKay and that three other doors were removed from his house by the police. He pin-chased all four at auction sales at New Plymouth. He had made every endeavour to trace the account sales. His own receipts had been burned when his house was destroyed. To His Honour: He bought them in 1927 or before. To Mr. Bennett: He had bought doors privately as well. When he wanted the four doors for his house in October, 1932, he brought them from his loft in the shed, where he stored second-hand doors, and put them in the kitchen. They were then in the same condition as when he purchased them. As far as he could remember the seven sashes were bought at Newton King’s haymarket. His Honour: When? ’ Cowling: About 1926 as far as I can remember. His Honour: All in one lot? Cowling: Yes. He took -the sashes from the loft when they were required for the house. One kauri and one Oregon door he bought for his house in October, 1932 — the kauri door from Flyger and Carter and the other from Odlin’s, both on the same day. They were hung by witness himself about the last week in October; Gibson was working there at the time. He had spent a whole day in trying to trace his purchases of doors from Nolan’s and King’s. The account books at Nolan’s had been destroyed and those at King’s had been lost. Members of the firms mentioned had spent a considerable time on the search, as well. He got some window sashes from Jones and Sandford,' to whom he sent sashes as patterns, one of each size.' He had re-sold several doors and sashes. He sold some to V. C. Davies in 1926. He had told the police that he had made the doors about six months before. That was untrue.

Mr. Bennett: Why did you say it? Cowling: Four of the great. cowards came down like a den of lions and Sergeant McGregor said they were going to pull the house down. I think I lost my temper.

His Honour: I can’t believe Sergeant McGregor said that. Cowling; He did, and I think he will admit it if you ask him. His Honour: Why do you call them cowards? Because there were four of them instead of one? Cowling: Well, I think I would have got on all right if only one had come. I lost my temper a bit and said whatever came into , my mind. Mr. Bennett: You did not appreciate what you said to them? Cowling: Perhaps not. His Honour: That is not a very satisfactory answer. Let us. have it honestly—“yes” or “no.” Cowling: No, I did not appreciate what I said. LIST OF JURYMEN. ' To Mr. Quilliam: This was not the first time his premises had been searched. Detectives Meiklejohn and Kearney had searched his premises at Westown and Bell Block in June, 1931. He could not say they did it thoroughly. He denied absolutely that they had searched the loft on that occasion. Counsel: They can be recalled. Cowling persisted that they had not ’ entered the loft. ' Counsel: You had a copy of the list of jurymen summoned for this court? Cowling: Yes. Counsel: And you have been going around speaking to some of the jurymen with the list in your hand? Cowling: That is not right. Counsel: Do you know a juryman named Kidd? Cowling: Yes. Counsel: When did you last speak to him? Yesterday. Where? In a lorry coming from Duncan and Davies’ nursery. You said nothing about this case? - No. There is another juryman named Tancred. When did you last speak to him? He was in the lorry .too. Were you at Duncan and Davies’ nursery on Monday night? Yes. Those two were there? Yes. Did you speak to them? . Yes. About the case? No. In reply to further questions Cowling said he had gohe to the nursery to see Davies, and Kidd and Tancred were there. If they said he spoke to them about the case it would not be correct. It was not correct, cither, that last week he had made inquiries where two of the jurymen lived ’at Westown, while he held a ‘ list of jurymen in his hand. He did not ask at a Westown shop where Cobbe and another juryman named Hardgrave lived. Mr. Quilliam: You know Reesby’s butcher’s shop at Westown? Cowling: Yes. You know Cbbbe and Hardgrave are butchers? I’m not quite sure what they are. But you had the list with their occupations? Yes. You did not ask where they lived? No. “DID NOT WANT IT.” His Honour: What did you get the jury list at all for? 1 can understand your solicitor getting one, bu. what did you want one for? Cowling: I really d.d not want it, but one was handed to me.

His Honour: Oh, you didn’t want one! Cowling: No. I didn’t know any of the jurymen. Mr. Bennett: When you were handed the jury list j;ou were warned not to speak to any of the jurymen' Cowling: »Yes, and I have not spoken to them.

His Honour interposed to say that he had never intended making any suggestion .against Mr. Bennett or his office. iMr. Bennett; I never heard before

that it was improper for an accused person to have a list of jurymen. Mr. Quilliam: I made no suggestion that way. His Honour, said it was not improper, but it was curious that Cowling should have carried the list about with him. , To Mr. Bennett, Cowling said that at the nursery the other night Davies had called him . outside. Witness had been for a few minutes in the same room as the two jurymen. He did not speak to them about the case. Davies did not hear what was said.

Recalled by Mr. Bennett after a short discussion Cowling said that the evidence he had just given about Reesby'was not correct. Reesby had said something about Cobbe being a Salvationist and not being much good on a jury. Witness was not interested.

Mr. Quilliam: How did Reesby come to say that? Cowling: I was getting a piece of meat from him.

Did you have the list in your hand then?

I had it with me. I don’t know whether it would be in my hand. If Reesby says you had the list in your hand it would be true?

Yes. Questioned further, Cowling admitted there might have 'been some reference to Cobbe -before Reesby’s remark. He might have asked Reesby if Cobbe worked for him.

Frederick John Lobb, Wesbown, carrier, said he had carted for Cowling since Cowling had lived at Westown. He had carted joinery for Cowling. He had seen plenty of other second-hand joinery about the premises. It was six or eight years since he had carted sec-ond-hand joinery - for Cowling from King’s haymarket. Cowling always paid cash. -

Edgar Lobb, carrier, said he could not be sure if the material he had carted for Cowling included joinery. He had carted from Nolan’s and West’s yards opposite, where building material was sold. John Edwin Carter, of Flyger and Carter, recognised a light-stained door in the. court. It was similar to doors in stock last October; about a month before at the request of Cowling he had got in an extra one. Before Cowling came in he sold one,, with the intention of replacing it. Co-..-ling subsequently bought the remaining door. Recalled, Detective Kearney said that on June 29, 1931, he and Detective Meiklejohn executed, a search warrant for pictures and oil paintings on Cowling s property at Bell Block and Westown. Witness made a thorough search of the loft at Westown. There was no sign of modem doors there such as those produced, though there were doors of a very old type: There were no doors in the cellar either. In May this year Cowling said it was no good going into the loft as it was the same as when he was in there last. The place was certainly dusty, as though it had not been disturbed. Cowling had told them nothing about his receipts having been burned. ‘

Detective A. B. Meiklejohn gave corroborative evidence.

Mr. Bennett addressed the jury for an hour and forty minutes and he was followed ,by Mr. Quilliam for 25 minutes. ; ’ JUDGE’S. .SUMMING UP. , Summing up, His Honour said the whole question in the case was, had it been proved to the jury’s satisfaction that these four doors and seven windows had come from Parkes’ house? If that had not been proved the whole case fell to the ground. It was not a fair criticism to say that Gibson, on becoming suspicious that the doors in Cowling’s place had come from Parkes’, should have immediately told the police. They had to remember that he had been unemployed and had received a job for a few days. Was he likely to jeopardise his position because he had suspicions? He did not know that doors had been stolen, even though he recognised them as from Parkes’ house; he could not say that Cowling had not obtained them honestly. He did go to the land agent, H. W. Whitcombe, and in confidence tell him what he had seen. At the request of counsel for the defence his Honour directed the jury that should it find Cowling not guilty that was. by no means equivalent to branding Gibson a perjurer; without saying that Gibson was not an honest man they might decide that he was mistaken. His Honour proceeded to review the evidence of Gibson and others and to point out a number of coincidences. He said the jury need not rely on the evidence u ,of Gibson alone, but could take into consideration, besides the evidence of the others, the conduct and demeanour of Cowling when the police visited him, when he visited Gibson,; and in the witness-box that day. If innocent what need was there for him to have got angry, or to tell lies, or to refuse information? If he were innocent, and he had given the police information regarding the way in which the joinery had been obtained honestly, the police could have confirmed that information and saved him the. necessity of appearing in court that day. His Honour commented on other aspects of the case. He pointed out that doors and windows were made to instal in houses, not to hide away by men like Cowling for long periods during which there was a possibility that they might get out of fashion. Doors did not improve with keeping, like port wine.