OFFENCES ADMITTED.

Wairarapa Age, 30 August 1933, Page 5

OFFENCES ADMITTED.

YOUTH BEFORE MAGISTRATE’S COURT. BREAKING & ENTERING, I'OBGEBY & THEFT. COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE. William Mum MacDonald, the 19-year-oid youth who was the central figure in the recent sensational bank hold-up at Palmerston North, appeared in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr. J. Miller, &M., facing seven charges relating to offences alleged to have been committed in Masterton, between May 29 and August 10. After the hearing of evidence the accused pleaded guilty to all the charges and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Sergeant T. H. Dyer conducted the prosecution and the accused, who was not represented by counsel, conducted his own case. The charges, which were dealt with in one deposition, were, one of breaking and entering by night the residence of Dr. Archer Hosking. and stealing therefrom one safety razor, a fountain pen. unemployment and postage stamps, of a total value of £3 19s. There were two charges of alleged forging of cheques to the amount of £3O each; two charges of attempting to have same acted upon as if genuine; one of presenting a valueless cheque to G. R. Deane and obtaining by means of same goods to the value of Is 6d and £1 8s 6d in money; and a charge of unlawfully entering the dwelling house of Michael Doyle, Manaia Road, by night, with intent to commit a crime., G. R. Deane, grocer, of Kuripuni. said that on August 10 he saw the accused standing on the corner opposite his shop about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Shortly afterwards accused entered the •hop and asked witness if he could oblige him by cashing a small cheque. .Witness replied that it all depended on whose cheque it was and for what amount. Accused said it was John Davie’s and witness said, “Oh. he is one of the local ministers; that should be all right.’’ MacDonald, who said he was waiting for a service car, handed over a cheque for £1 10s which witness eashed. Accused purchased two packets of cigarettes and received 28s 6d in change. In consequence of what he heard from the police, witness did not present the cheque at the bank. Constable C. Le Comte stated that he ascertained that the Rev. J. Davie did »ot have an account at the Bank of New Zealand, Maatertou. The cheque presented by MacDonald had been ia•ued to Mrs. Hosking and was stolen from her residence on August 8. Witness had interviewed accused at Masterton on Monday in connection with the offence and the latter had made a statement admitting handing the cheque to Deane. Questioned by accused, witness said that there was nothing in the correspondence from the Palmerston North PoHee to indicate that a telegram had been found on accused addressed to Deane asking him not to present the cheque at the bank. Accused also made some reference to restitution being

Dr. Archer Hosking, Church Street, Masterton, said that .before he retired, to bed about midnight on .August 8, allthe doors and windows in his house were locked. His house was a two-' storied one and all the family slept upstairs. About 6 o'clock next morn-, ing he was informed by his housekeep-, er that two doors and the "kitchen window were open. He came down stairs and found the light on in the surgery and two drawers of the surgery desk open. He noticed some unemployment and other stamps missing but at the time nothing else. He was later told that a fountain pen and razor were taken, and, on looking, found that those articles were missing. He was not aware of the cheques being taken •until the police showed him. two cheques, obviously forged. Four cheque forms had been taken from the book. He had not at that time given anyone authority to make out the cheques or to pay his rate account to the Borough Council. To accused, witness said that the kitchen window had a defective lock. Accused: “Would you say the window had been forced?” Witness: “No. There were no marks as far as I could see.” Accused: “In other words it was quite likely that the window had not been locked and left open J” ’’Witness: “Yes, that is quite likely.” About 1.30 p.m. on August 9, stated Jessie Exell, a clerk employed by the 'Masterton Borough Council, she received a telephone message purporting to come from Dr. Archer Hosking. It was a man’s voice. Some five or seven minutes later a young man came into the office and handed her a plain, sealed envelope, containing two cheques. There was no address on the envelope. Witness identified the accused as the young man and said that at the time he made some remark about Dr. Hosking and gave her to understand that he was from Dr. Hosking’s. Being doubtful about the signatures, added witness, she referred them to the accountant and told accused that she, did not have sufficient change. The ’ accused just stood back from the counter to wait. She did not think she told him to wait. When the Town Clerk came in some time later, accused was still waiting. After a while he came up and asked if the accountant would be long and witness said she did not think so. Accused then said he would call round to Dr Cowie’s. When the accused handed her the envelope witness asked him if it was Dr. Hosking who had spoken on the ’phone and accused replied, 4 ‘l do not know anything about that.” Accused did not return to the office. T. T. Denbee, Town Clerk, said that when he returned from lunch on August 9 he was shown two cheques purporting to be signed by Dr. Hosking. Having his suspicions about the signatures he instructed someone to go to the bank and verify them. He saw the accused in the office that day, but did not speak to him. When the accused left the office witness followed him round by the library into Perry Street. The accused strolled very leisurely up Perry Street, “but when he turned round and saw me watching him, he came back and asked me where Dr. Cowie lived.” Witness told him, and the accused strolled away again. He turned into Dr. Cowie’s, hesitated, and then cut diagonally across the road towards Donald’s. He later returned to the right hand side of the street and proceded up Perry Street. When he was nearly out of sight witness saw the accountant and a constable going into the Borough Office so he joined them and a search was made of the town in a car, but no trace of the accused was found.

Constable Le Comte told the Court that he had interviewed the accused on Monday and he had made a statement admitting the charge preferred against him of breaking and entering the residence of Dr. Hosking on August 9. He also admitted the forging and uttering of the cheques to the Borough Council and made a statement. In his statement, the accused said that prior to going to the Borough he had written out the two cheques for £3O each and had also telephoned to the Borough asking the amount of rates due. He told the young lady: “I am sending a patient, who is calling at Dr. Cowie’s, around with the amount.”

Michael Doyle said that with the exception of Flying-Officer J. Buckeridge, pilot-instructor to the Wairarapa Aero Club, all the occupants of his house slept upstairs. On May 29, he was awakened about 4z a.m. by one of the children, who called out that there was someone in the room. Hurried footsteps were then heard descending the stairs and the front door was violently shut. Witness came downstairs immediately and awakened Mr. Buckeridge and the pair made a search of the house and the grounds. A light rain coat and a pair of shoes were found on the eastern side of the house. Nothing had been disturbed in the house, and no sign was found of the intruder.

Witness was questioned at length by accused, who sought to show that the door was not locked and also that he was in the passage and not in the room when the child cried out. Witness admitted that it was possible that both these contentions were correct. Witness, however, would not agree that the time was 5 a.m., as suggested by accused, and stated that he knew it was 4 a.m. as he had looked at his watch. . When accused was interviewed (fn Monday, stated Constable Le Comte, he had strongly denied the charge and said he was not going to make any statement and “we were not going to. pin anything on to him until he had seen a solicitor.” In response to a request by the accused, witness said he had got into touch immediately with a Masterton solicitor. When the coat and shoes found Doyle’s were produced, witness agreed to make a statement and he admitted that the articles belonged to him. “Very conflicting evidence,” commented the accused, after a lengthy cross-examination of witness in. regard to the taking of a statement and remarks alleged to have been made by the constable when referring to the Doyle case. Accused elected to give evidence on oath regarding the last charge and from the witness box said that the first question by Constable Le Comte on his arrival in Masterton on Monday had been concerning the breaking and entering of some house opposite, the aerodrome. “As I knew,’’ added witness, “that strictly speaking Mr. Warren’s house was the only one opposite the aerodrome, I immediately said no. The

constable then produced a coat and a pair of shoes, which I admitted were mine.” Witness said he had suggested to the constable that he should be given an opportunity of seeing Mr. Doyle and giving an explanation and possibly having the charge withdrawn. The constable, however, had replied that it would be useless seeing Mr. Doyle. “I may be wrong,” said accused, “but I think I was told that there was some question as to whether I was to be prosecuted on the Doyle charge or whether the questioning was ‘merely to finish off a file.’ ” Accused fully admitted being in the house, but denied that he went there with any criminal intention. To the best of his belief it was after 5 a.m. when he reached the house. He found one of the . doors open and took off his coat and shoes and left them by the door. He intended to go to Mr. Buckeridge’s room, but was not certain where it was as he had never been in the house before. His intention was merely a practical joke. At the time he was employed at the aerodrome under Mr. Buckeridge. When he reached the passage at the head of the stairs, a child called out, and, realising that he was in a rather incriminating position if found he left hurriedly by another door. The next day he was undecided whether to make a confession to Air. Doyle or not but on learning that the matter had been reported to the police, decided not ! a^< “y. thln g about i‘- "I eonsidered tha v I was being punished to a certain extent by the loss of my eoat /remarked the accused. o ia Th . / a 8e ’ ’ he added > “took place about ten weeks before the offences to ZnHrel 1 am P leadin S guilty, and was entirely unconnected with them.” Dyer acc used denied tnat he had been questioned by the Palmerston North police concerning the Doyle ease. After some further ouestold 11 the b7 Serg , ean , t , Dyer > Mr. Miller were h, th e T : 1 30,1 tMnk you were in the house innocently.” ~ ® abused then pleaded guilty to the charge and was committed to the Supreme Court at Wellington on tht seven charges. Tne