HAWKE'S BAY ROBBERY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 138, 13 June 1931, Page 8

HAWKE'S BAY ROBBERY

FARMER’S LOSS OF £BOO. SECOND ACCUSED DISCHARGED. NAPIER, June 11. The hearing of the charge of theft of £BOO from James Joseph Leonard, farmer, against Peter Reilly, taxidriver, and Charles Nunns was concluded at the Napier Supreme Court yesterday. On the completion of the Crown’s case the Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, stated that on the evidence he felt a strong conviction that the case against Nunns could not be taken to the jury. Thereupon Nunns was discharged. Reilly was found guilty by the jury and remanded till Friday for sentence. In addressing the jury on Reilly’s behalf Mr Tattersail contended that Leonard’s evidence had merely raised suspicion against Reilly, on which the jury could not convict. In summing up, his Honour said it had been stated that accused Reilly stood there because of the drinking habits of another man. That might be true, but the fact that a man might be a drunkard did not justify any other man in robbing him. A drunkard had to be protected even more than other people and was entitled to justice. The jury might disregard Leonard’s evidence altogether, continued his Honour. The main point at issue was the drawing of the draft by Reilly and the cashing of the draft at Auckland into £5O and £lO notes. Between £4OO and £5OO of the £BOO was left unaccounted for. Then came the earthquake, and Leonard remembered nothing till he worke up at Wanganui and did not find any of £5O notes. He wrote to Reilly, who replied, “Don’t you remember? You gave me £24 and you had a further £424, which you must have left in the dining room and which must have been destroyed by fire.” As a matter of fact, continued his Honour, Reilly was an impecunious person before the earthquake and had defended a judgment summons successfully. The next thing one found was that before he wrote to Leonard he handed £424—the almost identical sum - —to Blunt to look after for him. Therefore, be used it for himself, and if he converted it to his own use it was theft. At the same time Reilly wrote to Leonard suggesting that this money had been burned. “The Judge is just as anxious to find reasonable doubt if he can,” remarked his Honour, “hut I have no hesitation in the circumstances in saying that I can see nothing which J sould call reasonable doubt.”