ALLEGED BURGLARY.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17493, 29 August 1928, Page 8

ALLEGED BURGLARY.

AT TE AROHA HOTEL. NIXON BEFORE COURT. VERDICf OF NOT GUILTY. The re-trial of George Albert Hedlev Nixon, soft goods salesman, of Auckland, for alleged burglary was commenced in the Hamilton Supreme Court before Mr Justice Blair yesterday morning. What File Was For. The prisoner then produoed a gramophone and explained to the jury how he had used the file to remedy a defect in the handle. He had also used the file for his nails. Cross-examined by Mr Gillies, the prisoner stated that he did not attempt to get away from Mr Page during the struggle. lie wished to prevent Page from ringing up the police because he wanted to explain to Page his reason for being in the house. Mr Gillies: Why did you struggle with the man whom you did not know was the proprietor at 5 o’clock in the morning? Prisoner: Because he was hurting my wrist and wouldn’t let me explain. Mr Gillies: Is it a fact that you went into the hotel for a bet?—No. Mr Gillies: llow many different stories have you told? Prisoner: None, ro far as I know. I have made correct statements to the police. Hin Honour asked for an inspection of the flies. Three flies were presented, which His Honour examined with a magnifying glass. At His Honour’s request accused (lied the nails of his right hand on one side. Mr Sullivan slated the files had been mixed and it, was not clear which was the file used by Nixon. William Henry Barnsdale, storeman at J. J. Niven and Go., expressed an opinion that the file produced by accused had not been used. Case for Defence. Outlining the defence, Mr Sullivan said the Grown Solicitor had abandoned his first charge. If the Grown had failed to prove that the accused was in the building with criminal intent, no matter how suspicious the circumstances, the prisoner should be acquitted. The Crown would indicate that as the file had not been used accused was present to commit a crime. Surely the jury would not accept this in the face of the evidence. The evidence of Mr Page and the constable had differed. A Hamilton firm could not come to an agreement on the matter. At the first trial prisoner made a straightforward statement although the Crown tried hard to shake it. To-day, his evidence had been no less unshaken. Another statement which eliminated doubt was the fact that it rained that night and accused wet his feet. Tired, cold and hungry, accused went to the door. The conversation between accused and the others was a natural one and rang true throughout. The Grown could not refute the statement made by the accused regarding the electric torch. The police visited the Auckland home from where the torch came and had found accused’s story was correct. The story of the keys also rang true. As far as the file wan concerned the Crown would say that it was used for a burglarious purpose. It was not a file suitable for this purpose. “Not Playing the Game.” The police had not played the game because, although Sergeant Culloty possessed the address of the accused on the same day he obtained a statement from him, he had allowed the jury to get the impression that accused had refused to give his address. This was hardly playing the game. If there were inconsistencies in accused's evidence, there were many in the Grown evidence. The Crown Case. Mr Gillies, summarising the Crown case, stated that his friend had mixed up fact and fiction. Mr Sullivan had dealt unfairly with the circumstances. If he (Mr Gillies) 'had been unfair and hidden facts llis Honour would be the first to remind him of this. What reason had Page and the constable to come into the Court and make untrue statements? Who was the most likely to be in the right? If the prisoner was innocent he was the most unlucky man existing. Instead of going to the sitting-room he went into the room where the money was.

Mr Sullivan interposed that there was no evidence that accused knew where the sitting-room was. Mr Gillies said lie would withdraw this remark, but accused was very unlucky to have had a file in his pocket at the time. The prisoner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt if the jury was convinced the prisoner appeared to be innocent. But did the incidents of the file, the torch, and the evidence indicate his innocence? His Honour, summing up, said the case was simple as far as the matters to which the jury should direct their attention wore concerned. The first count charged accused with breaking into the hotel with intent to commit a crime, and the second with being in tlie hotel with intent to commit a crime. IL was admitted accused was on the premises at night. Accused made no attempt to find accommodation as would have been expected of him, but played billiards for six hours. According to accused, the file had been bought for use on his gramophone, but Mr Barnsdale expressed the opinion that, the file had riol, been used at all. Accused had said he used the torch for going from an annexe to his house. Although the police had been satisfied he had an annexe there was nothing extraordinary in this testimony. The. jury retired at 5 o’clock and at r f returned with a verdict of not guilty on both counts. The prisoner \vas discharged.