THEFT CHARGE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20540, 15 February 1935, Page 7

THEFT CHARGE.

Indentification of Motor Cycle Parts. ACCUSED MAN’S DENIAL. The hearing of a charge of theft of a motor-cycle, with an alternative count of receiving certain parts of the cycle knowing them to be stolen, preferred against Cyril Rhodes, mechanic, was continued in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Johnston. The jury was empanelled and the indictments read last night. Mr Donnelly prosecuted, while Mr Russell, with him Mr Lester, appeared for the accused. The charges were: (a) that on October 17, 1933, he stole an Indian Scout motor-cycle valued at £l2 10s, the property of Raymond J. Fleete; and (b) that he received certain parts of the motor-cycle knowing them to have been stolen. Saw Parts in Window. Mr Donnelly said that Fleete’s motorcycle was stolen on October 17, 1933, and in March, 1934, he saw some parts in the window of a cycle dealer’s shop and recognised them as from his own motor-cycle. Fleete was a good mechanic and had done a lot of work on his machine. He recognised the parts by marks which he knew well, having made them himself when working on them. The accused had brought the parts to Powell’s shop. In a statement the accused denied stealing the motor-cycle. The parts, he said, were from a machine of similar make owned by him some years previously. He had bought some second-hand parts for that machine, and reconstructed the engine. The parts he took to Powell’s shop were the left-over parts after the reconstruction. He had traded-in his motor-cycle for one of a different make. The case, said the Crown Prosecutor, rested on the identification of the parts by Fleete. In evidence, Raymond Joseph Fleete explained markings and peculiarities on the parts, which, he said, were his own work. He had fitted various washers and made several adjustments which Ije identified positively. Henry James Powell, mechanic, said he used to know Rhodes well. Rhodes was a dirt-track rider, and witness used to tune up his racing machine for him. The accused thought of trying his luck on the dirt tracks of Australia, and said he had some old parts and would give them to witness. To Mr Russell, witness said the accused had always been straight and honest with him. The accused had only added new parts to his racing machine. He had not tried to get anything for the old parts from witness. Witness, examining the parts, said that many of the markings on them might be made in the ordinary course of maintenance and renewal. James Walkinshaw, butcher, of Christchurch, said that in 1928 he sold an Indian Scout motor-cycle to the accused. When he had it he did not ride it himself, but he thought it was in good repair. To Mr Russell the witness said he could not be quite sure that the motorcycle he sold to the accused was in good running order or nqt. Detective Parish gave evidence of the arrest of the accused. In reply to Mr Russell he said that the complainant had given the police the number of a push-bicycle he noticed near the scene of the theft. The number was not the number of the accused’s bicycle. Addressing the jury, Mr Russell said that the identification could not be taken as conclusive, as it had been shown that the markings were such as could be found on the parts of any old machine. There was proof that Rhodes had owned a similar motorcycle, and that he had not tried to make money from the parts. The jury retired at 12.25 p.m.