ROBBERY UNDER. ARMS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9319, 20 August 1908, Page 3

ROBBERY UNDER. ARMS.

j " • ! FURTHER CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED. At the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr Justice Denniston, the hearing of charges against Joseph Johnston, Frank JBolton and James Keegan i of robbing Joseph John Dearsley of Bs, and Matthew Quinn of 7s, while armed with offensive weapons, and of robbing ' William Chapman of 30s and a pair ' of spectacles, was continued. Mr Russell called Constable Hampton, who repeated, tile evidence given by him iii the previous case against the accused. Bolton cross-examined the witness at considerable length regarding the watch kept upon accused's house on the night of May 16. Witness stated that it would not have been possiblo for the accused to leave the tram at Watson's store and reach their house before witness, who went in the tram as far as the terminus near the old baths. Accused were not arrested when a statement was obtained from Keegari. His Honor said that after they met the police on the morning of May 18 the accused would not have been allowed to walk away, or to refuse to be searched. They were therefore prac- j tically arrested, and the police there- j fore put questions to them in a man- . ncr contrary to practice. The evidence thus obtained, however, was quite admissible. # j Detective Connell repeated the evidence given by him in the previous case. 1 He added that ho 'found two pennies and ten sixpences on Bolton, and thirty shilling pieces, seven sixpences, nine threepences, three pennies and two halfpennies on Johnston. - This concluded the case for the Crown. The accused Johnston addressed the jury, contending that the only evidence which connected the accused with the theft from Chapman was a pair of scissors found in tneir possession. The only way in which Chapman could identify the scissors was by o loose rivet, which was surely not unusual in scissors. Although Chapman and Fletcher were together. Chapman could remember nothing about "the men who j assaulted him, while Fletcher professed to be able to identify them, and identified a man who was not at present accused, and who was not in Christchurch at the time of the robberies. If Fletcher could make a mistake in one case he could make a mistake in another. The accused Bolton also addressed the jury, traversing the evidence given as to y identity. , His Honor summed up. briefly reviewing the evidence. He explained that the onus of proving these cases was upon the Crown. If the jury believed the evidence of the Crown witnesses it would bring in a verdict of guilty on the first, count in each indictment. The evidence of identification was strong in the case of Johnston, and Johnston was connected with the other two accused by the fact that they all lived together. The indirect evidence was unexceptionally strong. The ring stolen from Marshall within minutes of the time of the other robberies was found in the possession of Johnston. That clearly identified Johnston as being one of a band of three men using revolvers who were abroad on the night in question, and who committed at least one robbery. The evidence' of Brown and Constable Hampton showed that the accused's story that they returned to Sumner before midnight on May 16 was untrue. The accused pleaded guilty on charges of breaking and entering the premises of J. T. M'Kargue at Woolston on May 12 a,nd stealing therefrom clothing valued at £12, and of breaking and entering the premises of W. F. Keen, at Linwood, on May 12. and stealing thferefrbm tobacco and ' cigarettes valued at £2. Mr Russell said that- 'an additional charge of robbery under arms against the/accused would be held over. It was probable no evidence would be offered by the' Crown. The jury, after a retirement of twenty minutes, returned a verdict of guilty against each prisoner on each of the three charges.