VERDICT OF GUILTY

Press, Volume C, Issue 29513, 13 May 1961, Page 14

VERDICT OF GUILTY

Man Charged With Theft

Donald Henry John Kirdy. aged 23, a factory worker, was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge of the theft of car parts and accessories valued at £55, the property of Daniel David Robins, on October 1. 1960. Mr Justice Richmond remanded Kirdy in custody for sentence on a date to be fixed. The jury took 50 minutes to reach its verdict. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) conducted the case for the Crown. Mr R. J. de Goldi appeared for Kirdy.

Evidence for the Crown, given on Thursday, was that a youth named Leo Swan had said the accused could take a car body belonging to him from a garage in Bordesley street. Linwood. Swan said he had shown the accused the car body he owned. The accused had asked him about another car body there. Swan said he had told the accused this car body belonged to Robins. Robins said that parts had been stripped off his car and he caught the accused towing the body away. The accused gave evidence that Swan had said he could take both car bodies, and that Swan had said both belonged to him. Accused denied stripping Robins's car of parts. Final Addresses In his final address for the defence, Mr de Goldi said that the accused by his own evidence and that of the witness Groves had given the explanation that he tliought he had authority to take both the car bodies. The open, leisurely way in which he had removed the vehicles and car parts confirmed that the accused honestly believed he had authority to take the car parts. When the accused was asked by Robins what he was doing with Robins's car he had immediately replied it had been given to him. When Robins told him it was Ms car, the accused had offered to put the car body back. Mr Mahon, in his final address, said that Swan had said in evidence that he told the accused the second car belonged to Robins. The jury might think what possible motive Swan could have in saying that the accused could have this car. Counsel submitted that the accused’s evidence had been full of inconsistencies and that the accused had changed his story considerably.