SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17947, 4 May 1928, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

TIMARU SESSION. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Adams). NOT GUILTY OF THEFT. At the conclusion of Wednesday’s session, the Crown case against Leslie James Roache, who was charged with the theft of £4O 17s 6d, the property of the Farmers’ and Graziers’ Supply Company, was completed. Accused, who was represented by Mr R. Twyneham, of Christchurch, pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled:—Messrs H. A. Innes-Jones (foreman), R. L. Wigley, J. Keenan, J». Goldie, F. W. Rush, F. R. Chapman, D. Halkin, W. Kane, W. Carlton, H. W. Burt, T. Guthrie and W. J. Sullivan.

When the Court resumed yesterday morning, the case was proceeded with. ... . Mr Twyneham said that he.did not intend to call any evidence. Mr W. D. Campbell (Crown Prosecutor) said that judging by- .the remarks made by a juryman ‘ the previous evening, he took'it • that some of them did not wish to be detained very long. Continuing, he skid that the fact that a partner took some money and accounted for it, at a later date did not get over the fact that theft had been committed. He went on to refer to the evidence that the accused had received the money, which, he said, was undisputed. The question as to whether the money had been paid back or not did not affect the theft of the money in the first place. 'Addressing the jury, Mr Twyneham said that the case should never have been brought before the Court.; Before going to Christchurch the accused had wired Stokes telling him that he. had handed' over to Miller, the Oaniaru agent, the money paid to him by the client Simpson. What was the motive which led Stokes to lay an information against the accused? Before going, to the accused, Stokes drew up an agreement stating that the accused should admit the theft, should not trade in the South Island in . the same class of business in the future, arid should, "hand over his share of the partner- 1 ship assets. Was it to be expected, that the accused would sign such ari, outrageous agreement? Then why had the Crown brought Miller to give evidence in the case? He was under arrest for issuing valueless cheques, and had been suspected of irregularities while in the employ of the accused’s . firm, and he had been brought from Christchurch under police escort. He - Would leave the jury to draw their 7 own conclusions from that. The documentary evidence stood against Miller, and not against the accused.. The onus was on the Crown to prove the accused guilty, and if there was a doubt, then the accused was'entitled to the benefit ;-of that-doubt;*'.

His Honour said that he ought to say something about the language Used by the counsel for the accused concerning the witness Miller. Counsel had said that Miller was an accomplice of the ..accuse;!, ~ but there was not.a shred of evidence to this effect,'and the statement ought never to have been made. There was an opportunity while Miller was in the box to get his story of ,th,e whole matter, but he suggested that this was- deliberately avoided in an endeavour to make the charge against Miller which had been made that rebuttal >of -the . . Crown. •.casei- ? - -: suggestion put forward by counsel was correct, then why did the accused say, after the death of the debtor, that there was no use worrying the trustees. There was evidence that the cheque issued by Simpson was cashed, and some two months later the money was accounted for.. Theft was'the taking of something belonging -to..someone else, with intent to deprive- the owner ..permanently of what was taken, and the intent had to be judged by all the attendant circumstances. Accused, at the end of January, gave Miller a receipt for the money, and why was that done ? That was the question which they would have to decide. The agreement referred to by Counsel, was certainly ari extraordinary kind of agreeriient, but it arose out of certain discoveries which had' been made. His Honour said he did not desire to influence the jury on the facts, but what he had said was rendered necessary by the course adopted by the defence. , The jury retired at llis, and returned at 11.43 with a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was then discharged.