STOLEN GOODS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20539, 14 February 1935, Page 14

STOLEN GOODS.

Tobacconist Found Guilty of Receiving. SENTENCE DEFERRED. After a trial which lasted most of the day and well into the evening, Edwin Joseph Fearon, tobacconist, was found guilty on five counts of receiving stolen goods in the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston. The case attracted much attention, spectators taking up every available seat, and the exhibits in the case, tobacco and cigarettes, were so numerous that the floor of the courtroom looked like portion of a tobacco warehouse. Mr Donnelly prosecuted, and Mr Sargent and Mr Thomas appeared for accused. There were five charges of receiving, and in each case there was an alternative count that the accused, knowing the property to be dishonestly obtained, converted it to his own use, thereby committing theft. In all cases the goods alleged to have been illegally received were tobacco and cigarettes, and in all cases the accused was alleged to have received them from a man named Leslie Pearce. The details of amounts and dates were:—(a) Goods to the value of £lOl 2s sd, the property of the Farmers’ Co-operative Association (Canterbury), Ltd.; on November 23; (b) goods, £2O, the property of Roberts and Tulloch, on December 10; (c) goods, £ls 8s 7d, the property of Gordon A. A. Lelievre, on December 2; (d) goods, £22, the property of the Self-Help Co-operative, on November 20; (e) goods, £7 5s Id, the property of the Farmers’ Co-opera-tive Association, on December 4. The accused pleaded not guilty on all counts. Pearce’s Evidence. Leslie Pearce, at present awaiting sentence on charges of breaking, entering and theft, said that on one occasion he entered a store at Rangiora. In November and December he and Mitchell committed five burglaries, steal- - a large quantity of tobacco and cigarettes. Prior to that he had presented a letter of introduction to Fearon, and asked if Fearon would buy tobacco from him. Fearon, who knew the tobacco was to be stolen, said he would do so, the price to be 3d a packet for cigarettes and 9d for a 2ox tin of tobacco. Witness said he and Mitchell used to steal a car from the street in town, go into the country and commit the burglary, drive back to town with the proceeds. For the proceeds of all the burglaries Fearon paid something over £6O. Witness saw Fearon prior to each robbery to make arrangements for disposing of the tobacco. Twice a woman accompanied witness to Fearon’s and took tobacco in. Sometimes the tobacco would be placed in a cellar, to which entry was gained by a trap door underneath a barber’s chair. Witness identified two tins of tobacco by indentations. Fearon always knew witness as Pearce, not as Spence. He did not tell accused he had been in business and was trying to sell his old stock. Fearon told witness he was a fool to keep on doing small jobs, and should do something big “ like the bond stores.” To Mr Thomas, witness said he had spent two-thirds of the last twelve years in gaol. His first conviction was for breaking and entering. About 1921 he was sentenced to three years’ gaol. “ Did the Magistrate say then that you should be medically examined?” asked Mr Thomas. Witness: Yes.

Witness then admitted a long list of convictions. It was true he had been charged with throwing ammonia in a bank manager’s eyes in an attempt to rob the bank. “ I didn’t try to hit his eyes,” said Pearce. “ I aimed for his nose and mouth.” Mr Thomas: Do you carry firearms? “ Yes,” replied Pearce, “ but not on every occasion.” Mr Thomas: And at Woodend the firearm went off?—Yes. . Here Mr Donnelly objected, as Pearce was yet to be tried on the shooting charge. His Honor upheld the objection. To Mr Thomas, witness said he first met Mitchell in gaol. He had been living with a woman, whose husband he met in Paparua Prison. Mr Thomas: Did you ever approach Mr Lorrimer, of Woolston, and ask him to buy tobacco?—No. “Are you above telling a lie?” asked counsel. Witness: No. Then how are the jury to believe you now ?—Because I am on oath. Took Tobacco to Shop. The woman who had been associated with Pearce said that in November last she w r as living in Armagh Street, the other occupants of the house being Pearce and Mr and Mrs Mitchell. One Friday night she took tobacco to Fearon’s shop. Pearce was with her. There were three suit-cases. Later, when she was in a hotel with Mitchell, Pearce came in with a roll of. notes and gave Mitchell half. “ I saw Fearon after Pearce’s arrest,” said witness, “ and he said he would be all right so long as Pearce did not ‘ pot ’ him.” Robert James Mitchell, awaiting trial on a breaking and entering charge, identified some of the tobacco produced in Court as part of the proceeds of burglaries by Pearce and himself. To Mr Thomas, witness said he was convicted at the age of thirteen. He was convicted of breaking and entering in 1929. Witness said he was with Pearce in his robberies, yet he only had one charge against him. “ Why did not the police charge you on all these other counts?” asked Mr Thomas. “ Because you are giving evidence against Fearon?” Witness: No. Because I am giving evidence agairfst Pearce. And your being excused on these twenty odd charges on account of your giving evidence would not affect the truthfulness of your evidence?”—No. While you are not above lying in ordinary times, at present you are bound to the truth by the sanctity of your oath?—Yes. No evidence was called for the defence. Counsel’s Address. In his address to the jury, Mr Thomas attacked the credibility of the ! witnesses Pearce, Mitchell and the woi man. The only direct evidence of re- ; ceiving that had been brought was j that of Pearce, and Pearce was one of , the most dangerous criminals that the i community had even known. Pearce’s .story had no solid corroboration, whereJas there were several points in the ‘evidence of the prosecution which conj firmed the statement made by accused. On the theft counts, said counsel, it I would be hard to convict a man who,

like accused, made no effort whatsoever to get rid of the goods, but left them in full sight for anyone to see. His Honor, summing up, said that the receiving charges rested on the question of “ guilty knowledge.” It was true that the evidence of accomplices had to be regarded with suspicion, and was not to be accepted without corroboration. It depended upon the inference the jury drew from the whole of the circumstances. The crime of receiving was an important one and a serious one. “ The receiver provides the incentive for most burglaries,” concluded his Honor. The jury retired at 6.45 p.m. The jury returned at 9.30 p m with a verdict of guilty on five counts of receiving. The prisoner was remanded for sentence.