ALLEGATION OF THEFT.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16747, 13 March 1926, Page 4

ALLEGATION OF THEFT.

DISMISSAL BY MAGISTRATE. "NOT A TITTLE OF EVIDENCE.” GRAMOPHONE AND RECORDS. "In all my experience I have never l known the police to bring a case of this kind; (hero is no just reason for suspicion and not one tittle of evidence against, accused.’’ These words were used by Mr Wyvom Wilson, S.M.. in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court this mornijlg, when dismissing a charge against’ a married woman, Agnes Lena Courtney, of stealing between July and October of last year 29 gramophone records valued at £fi 10s 6d, and a Dulceto gramophone valued at £5 12s from a dealer, Thomas Allen.

The case was partly heard last Wednesday, and then adjourned until this morning.

Detective-Sergeant O’Brien deposed to having visited a house in Parnell. Auckland, occupied by the mother of accused. Witness did not see a Dnlcfcto gramophone in the house. He had been supplied with the names of six of Allen's missing records, and. although-there were 19 records in the house, the only record answering the description of the missing ones, was "Nobody’s Sweetheart,” with "Why Did I Kiss that Girl?” on the other side. The accused’s mother stated the record might have been among some borrowed from friends or it might have been purchased by members of the household. Accused's aunt had also been interviewed and had been in possession of four records which had the same titles as those missing • from Allen's rooms. She stated she had bought the records from a hawker.

A Machine Lent. Bose Jane Uren said she had a La) Gloria gramophone and had lent the machine to accused a week before, being interviewed by the police. It was lent accused together with records on several occasions. Witness had been a frequent visitor to accused’s house and had only 'seen her own gramophone and that, of her son* which was. a Decca. The only records played were those belonging to them.

A farm labourer, Ernest Keith Uren, said ho had never lent his grampphnno to accused. He had been at accused’s house about the beginning of November, and saw no gramophone or records then. Witness knew, however, that his people had taken his gramophone over to accused's house, when he had been away working in the country. Gordon Wallace, a cabinet maker. Stated he lived next door to accused and heard a gramophone playing fairly often.

Detective Cullotty said that on December 14 he interviewed accused at her home, in Rosstrevor Street,. He informed her he was making enquiries about a missing gramophone and records from Allen’s room. Accused in a statement had said that, she bought two records from her sister in Auckland. She could not account for four records in possession of her aunt, of the same titles as those missing from Allen’s room. A record in possession of her mother, "Why did I Kiss that Girl?” was one she purchased from Allen.

Statement by Accused. In a further statement accused had said that the last time she had a gramophone was one lent her by Mrs Uren. She had never had a Dulceto gramophone in her house. Cross-examined by Mr Strang, witness said that when he first visited accused lie searched her house and faded to see any gramophone or records in the place. The first inquiries in the matter were directed at the Auckland end. Mr Strang: What led you to take that, course? Witness: Because I was led to believe that accused made a present of a. gramophone and records to her sister there.

Witness added that it had struck him as a little strange that 29 records of only three tunes had been stolen. He made enquiries in second-hand shops and from shops in Hamilton, but found no trace of them. After hearing evidence for the prosecution, His Worship intimated that he did not require to hear counsel for the defence (Mr J. F. Strang).

No Suspicion Against Accused,

His Worship said there was no suspicion against accused. Reviewing the case, Mr Wilson pointed out that the evidence of Allen was not corroborated. He would not say, however, that the records had not disappeared, but Allen’s evidence was not accurate and therefore not reliable. In his statement to the police Allen had said there were eight records of one sort and 10 of another missing, and later 1n Court had told a different story, stating there were 10 and 11 respectively.

This prosecution is one for theft, accused being charged with stealing a gramophone and records. Obviously the records had been stolen, but unless a person wanted to trade in them nobody would want 10 of one kind. It was not suggested that accused was stealing and trading. No trace had been found of the instrument itself. The utmost evidence for the police was that of a witness, who said site was almost sure the Dulccto gramophone was in accused’s house. That was the nearest approach of any evidence to sheet home the fact of any property being stolon. The evidence showed that there was no doubt that the woman played a gramophone in the house, but why the police should charge her with stealing the gramophone and records was beyond comprehension, added His Worship. The police found one record in accused mother’s house in Auckland of the same title as Allen had in Hamilton, and used this as evidence against. Mi's Courtney. Probably the, originator of the case was Mrs, Dominikovich. who was not prepared to take the oath to tell the whole truth. This suggested there was something that she wanted to keep dark. She also refused to answer in Court the question if she had discussed the case with another witness. Obviously her evidence was not impartial.

His Worship then dismissed the case.