AFTERNOON SITTING.

West Coast Times, Issue 13767, 13 March 1906, Page 3

AFTERNOON SITTING.

The Court resumed at 2.15.

Qeorge Dyer, hoteSkeeper, Reefton, remembered the night of tbe 10th Nov., 190*, but did not remember the night when any robbery took place. Accused stayed at his house one night about that

time. Remembered a man named McGregor staging in the bouse tbe same night.

Peter Connolly, called, did not appear. Accused wished to question him as to whether he w«ot to Westporc on tbe morning of tba 12th Occober.

John Cearney, jeweller, Qreymoutb, bad saen the watch and chain (produced) before.' It was to him by accused about October, 1004. When tbe watch and obain was brought to him by Conway ha asked the value of it, would it go to £10 or £12. Witness said it was worth that easily if only to break up. Had seen the watch in Gonway's possittion before Mr Williams came to him. On account of Mr Williams' visit witness called on Conway and said a friend of his had complained to him a few days previously of having missed a watch. Conway said he would bave nothing to do with it. Witness thought from Gonway's answer that tbe watch was not in b% possession.

Mr Steele, called, dii not appear. Accused wished tbis wituess to corroborate the fact that he was in Millerton in the mon'h of .October.

Accußtd addressed tbe jurj\ i'afcicg that fchera was no evidence to connect hun with tbe crime. On tbe night he was aoouied of breaking and entering ihe house of Mr Williams they bad tbe evidanco of Mr, Dyer that he came borne at 10.15, It would have taken accused an hour to go from Reef ton t j Mr Williamo' place, and as there was « string of pedesr tr'ans on the road the same night, accused, who was thoroughly known in the looaliiy, must have been identified as baring been there if he had been there. Accused made a lengthy statemiut, in which he endeavoured to oonneut the critce with another person. Accused, in conclusion, pleaded with the jury not to convict him in the face of the contradictory evidence, and he left bis cubb with all confl Jence in their hands.

His Honour, in summing up, said 'bare were two counts io the indictment, burglary and bouaebmking. There was the evidence of witnesses who had seen the accused in the neighbourhood of the house broken into a abort time before the crime was committed, and evidonce ■bowing be was posseased of the stolon propei ty afterwards. Pcs»essioa of stolen property was looked on as presumptive evidence of tbe commission of tb« crime. The robbery took pice I c fcween tbe hours of 3 o'clock in the afternoon of ll(b October, »nd tbe early hours of next morning. Tbe prisoner wjvs shown to have b«en in the locality a short time before tb» robbtiy was coounitud

speaking t j Mr Williams, and the ev:rio co vroht to s bow that accused r turned to Dyer's Hotel at 10.15 that nqbt. The prisoner, in reeling the evidenc*, said tha 1 ; I c must have been

se«. ii if he commit' ed tbe crime, there

being many people along the thoroughfare. It would be for the jury to weigh

tbe value of that s'atemeat of f)e p isoner. The case depended largely on tbe Evidecca of Conway and Miss Lee and the witness Cearney. Conway end the prisoner Lad some dealing about tbe month of Octobrr, 1904, and they went to the Imperial Hotel aud at tbe request of accuced tbe watch and chain were handed over to him. They hud also Cearney'n evidence as to Conway having consulted him with regard to the value of the watch and chain. Tbe accused had pointed, out that Conway'a statement and that of Williams were inconsistent, but tbe time which had elapsed since the robbery and fcioce the trial in the lower Court was so great reliance could be placed on dates mentioned. They had the facts that a gold watcb and chain were stolen. A gold watcb aud chain bad been handed to Miss Lee by accused about the time when tha watch and cbaia were stolen. Ihe accused endeavoured to rebut the suspicions circumstances against him by saying that be sold tbe cbaiu for £4, and that afterwards he sold tbe watch to a man in a "two up" school in Wellington. He related that be went to Westport, afterwards to Canterbury and to Wellington, but the records showed that be spent eleven months in garl subsequently. It would be for the jury to consider the accused's statements in relation to the other evidence.

Tbe jury letired at 3.15, and returned at 3.49. They found the prisoner guilty of stealing a gold watch and chain .

In reply to tbe questiou as to whether he had anything to say wby sentence should not be passed upon him, tke aooused pleaded for a lenient sentence in view of tbe fact that this was the first charge brought against him in tbe Courts.

His Hononr said that in view of the finding of the jury and tbe fact that the accused had not been convicted of break-

ing and entering, he would not inflict a severe sentence. He would be committed to gaol for twelve months with bard labour. The Court proceedings tben concluded.