NOT GUILTY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20542, 18 February 1935, Page 7

NOT GUILTY.

Charge of Breaking and Entering. LABOURER ON TRIAL. The Supreme Court to-day was the scene of the sequel to the sensational chase of two men, one of whom was armed, that occurred in the city on the night of December 6. Robert James Mitchell, a labourer, was charged with breaking and entering the premises of the Selwyn Hosiery Manufacturing Company, Ltd., with intent to commit a crime. He pleaded not guilty'. For the Crown, Leslie Pearce, who is awaiting sentence on a charge of breaking and entering, testified that Mitchell was his accomplice at Selwyn Street on the night of December 6. Mr Justice Johnston was on the Bench. Mr Russell, with him Mr Lester, appeared for Mitchell. Mr Donnelly, Crown solicitor, conducted the prosecution. The jury returned after lunch with a verdict of not guilty. In outlining the case, Mr Donnelly said that> at 11 p.m. on December 6 tw r o persons were passing the warehouse of the Selwyn Hosiery Manufacturing Co. ai ?d heard the burglar alarm ringing. They saw two men, "who were carrving suitcases, running away from the building. A chase ensued. While the men were trying to escape across the Madras Street bridge, one of them turned and held up the party that was after them at the point of a revolver. Later he again threatened to use the revolver. That man was named Pearce. He subsequently admitted that the warehouse u™ v- n broken into by him, and said , a t Mitchell was the man associated with him. Evidence that the warehouse had been broken into was given by the manager of the Selwvn Hosiery Manufacturing Company, Wilfred Johns. Identification Parade. William Frederick Guy gave evidence that he heard the burglar alarm ringing inside the building. He saw two men running away, carrying suitcases and took part in the chase. One of the men had tried to hold up the followers with a revolver. Subsequently, at an identification parade held at the police station, witness was not able to identify either of the men. \ ernon Neil Guy, a brother of the previous witness, said that he was one of a party that chased two men to the Madras Street bridge. On the bridge only one man could be seen, and he turned and presented a revolver at the men chasing him. Later two suitcases, similar to the suitcases that witness had seen the men carrving, were found on the railway line by a porter. Witness could not identify either of the men.

Leslie W alter Piper, a labourer, stated that after he had been stopped by the previous witness and told of his suspicions he went to the Sydenham Police Station and informed Constable vt ootton Y\ ltness and the constable Joined in the chase, coming up with the two men near the Madras Street bridge On the bridge, witness and the constable -Were help up at the point of a revolver by a man in a dark suit, who, witness believed, was Pearce. The other man ran down the bridge on the Sydenham side. Later, in Latimer Square, the constable apprehended Pearce at the point of the revolver and disarmed him. “ Thought It Looked Easy,” Leslie Pearce, who is awaiting sentence on a charge of breaking and entering, was the next witness. lie stated that about 8.15 p.m. on December 6, he and the accused left their home at 303, Armagh Street and went down to Selwyn Street, with two suitcases similar to the ones produced. “We walked round the warehouse,” said witness, “ and thought it looked easy. I gave Mitchell a hand to break in the first door, and we had started on the second, when the alarm went off. We then collected the bags, got over the gate into the street, and then took shelter in the front garden of a house Close by. In a short while we set off down the street and Were chased by some men who were on bicycles. “ Eventually we reached the Sydenham end of the Madras Street bridge. Mitchell was carrying a jemmv, but he threw it away just before we'got to the bridge. By this time the men following us were fairly close. Someone ordered us to stop. We didn’t, we kept on running. On the bridge I produced a revolver and told the men to stand back.” Witness added that when he got to the other side of the bridge there was no sign of Mitchell. Witness had given him some money to get rid of the bags at the Railway Station. Witness was later arrested. In the lock-up he had a conversation With Mitchell, in which he said:" It could not be helped, boy.” Mitchell replied: "Without your statement they would neveT have landed me.” A married woman stated that she and her child, Mitchell and his wife and children, and Pearce were all living in one house in Armagh Street, Mitchell and Pearce paying the rent between them. On the night of December 6, Mitchell came home about 12 o’clock, lie said the alarm had gone off, and they had been chased, lie also said that Pearce would be all right if he used the gun, adding that he, himself, was a ‘ gonner ” as his fingerprints would be found on the suitcases. He asked witness t£> tell the police, if they , came, that he had been home all night. Later on Mitchell said to Witness that he would have shot the men if he had had a gun. Witness added that when detectives called at the house asking for Mitchell, she told them that he might have been out and he might have been home all the evening; she did not know. Later she told the police that he had gone out with Pearce. To Mr Russell: I was living with Pearce. My husband is in gaol. Detectives Halcrow and Herron gave evidence for the police, concluding the case for the prosecution. No evidence was called for the defence. His Honor Sums Up. In summing up, his Honor said there was no doubt that men. were seen coming out of the warehouse after the alarm had started ringing. The jury had heard the witness Pearce admit that he was one of the men. He had also said that he had an accomplice, and there was no doubt that he did have an accomplice, and had named the accused. That testimony was supported by the evidence of a woman. That was all there was to the case really, for no outsider had been able to identify the accused as the accomplice. There was no question about'the woman being an accomplice, and her evidence had to be regarded with the gravest suspicion. First, she had given

Mitchell an alibi and then she withdrew it. It was very hard for the jury to decide which story they were to believe. It was the duty of the presiding Judge to warn the jury that it was unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Evidence in corroboration must come from an independent source. Ilis Honor had listened very carefully to the evidence and had not found any independent evidence corroborative of these stories. The jury retired at 12.48 p.m. and returned at 230 p.m., after taking an hour for lunch, with a verdict of not guilty.