GUILTY OF RECEIVING

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 18589, 30 May 1935, Page 8

GUILTY OF RECEIVING

HORSE DEALER CHARGED. CONVICTION ON ONE COUNT. ACCUSED DENIES DISHONESTY. A verdict of guilty on the second count and not guilty on the first was returned by the jury in the case in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, this morning in which Robert Mclntyre, a horse dealer, was charged with the theft of a horse, valued at £45, at Matamata, on February 15, and with receiving the horse, knowing it was dishonestly obtained.

Mr 11. 1\ Gillies prosecuted for the Crown and the accused conducted his own defence.

Following is the concluding evidence heard to-day:— When the case resumed this morning Constable G. 11. Holt, of Matamata, testified to accompanying James to Farmworth’s farm. lie was present when James identified the mare as his. Next day he Interviewed Mclntyre at Tirau. Mclntyre explained that he obtained the horse from a man named Stewart at Matamata and made a statement to that effect but refused to sign it.

After reading out the lengthy statement made by the accused, witness said he made every possible Inquiry and could locate no dealer named Stewart In the Matamata district. A Waharoa labourer, John Thomas Andrews, said the accused was residing at a Mr Walker’s place at Waharoa in February. On February 14 the accused left, stating that he was going to Hamilton to collect a mob of cattle.

Andrew Ernest Rnndrup, farmer, of 'llinuera, stated that he met Mclntyre at the Matamata stock sale on Wednesday, February 13.: The only person witness saw .accused talking to there was a man named Martin. Witness . knew no horse-dealer named Stewart.. This concluded the case for the Crown. . “Sale on Commission.” In the witness-box the accused said he attended the Matamata sales on February 13 for the purpose of doing business. He met Stewart there who asked him whether he was buying horses.' Stewart agreed to hand over three horses for the accused to sell on commission and instructed him to pick them up on the Friday morning. The terms were agreed upon. On the Friday morning he went to the Matamata . sale yards and saw a mare in the pens. He could find no traoe of the other two horses referred to by Stewart. However, lie was satisfied that the mare was the one Stewart desired him to sell. The accused said' he rode the mare from Matamata to Tirau where he housed her for the night near a whare. Next day he left the mare at Farm worth’s farm, asking Farmworth to endeavour to find a buyer. On Sunday and Monday he visited the Ngongotaha district looking for suitable stock, returning on Tuesday night. On Wednesday .he called at Farmworlh’s farm and Farmworth asked him what he meant by taking a stolen horse to his farm. He replied that he had taken the horse in good faith and did not know it was stolen. Witness went on to refer to his conversation with the police. On the advice of a Matamata solicitor he had decided not to sign the statement to the police. Cross-examined, witness admitted that every dealer did a certain amount of bluffing. He was not bluffing in court. He had had no opportunity to produce Stewart because he had been locked up for three months. Stewart, he heard, was a dealer at Morrinsville. When lie told Farmworth that the mare was his he was only bluffing. He admitted lie told Andrews an untruth when he said he was going in a car to Hamilton to collect stock. During the last three months he had been in gaol for the theft of linen at Waharoa. He admitted he was convicted for theft at Whakatane in 1933 and that he was convicted for forgery in Hamilton in 1924. He had used false names at different times. His first offence was theft 11 years ago at Hamilton. Addressing the jury the accused said he had been entrusted with iarge amounts of valuable stock on many occasions and had never betrayed that trust. When arrested he was working up a valuable connection. After a retirement of an hour and a-half the jury brought in a verdict of guilty of. receiving but not guilty of theft. The accused was remanded for sentence to-morrow.