YESTERDAY'S HEARING

Chronicle (Levin), 6 November 1947, Page 5

YESTERDAY'S HEARING

Press Association)

(Per

WELLINGTON, Xov. 5. Details of a telephone conversation he had with a man who called himself •John Low, on a Friday about the end of May or beginriing of .lune, were given by Ian Kea Martin, Reserve Bank clerk, in the Supreme Court when the case of Peter Edward -Millett, bank clerk, was continued this afternoon. Millett is charged on three counts of forgery, three of uttering forged documents and one of theft of Government stock certificates of the face value of £1 0,000. Witness said the eall came to the aeeounts office. The man said he was John Low and wanted tolcnow whether his stock certificates were ready to De uplifted. Witness ascertained from anotlier clerk tliat the certificates were ready and he told Low who then asked if tlie certificates could be delivered to him at Seatoun. When witness said they could liot, Low asked. if they could be delivered to the manageress of an hotel in Courtenay Place. Wit ness told him they would not deliver the certificates to anyone but Low him self or a bank. Low then said he was going away for a few days and would try to colleet them when he. returned. Answering a question by Mr. Cun ningham for the Crown, witness said the voice on the phone was very sofi and very eultured. It was what witness would call an English voice aiul definitely not of Xew Zealand accent. Opening the case for the d-efence, Dr. O. C. Mazengarb said: "The whole case of tlie Crown stands or falls on the simple issue that Millett was the one and only person who conceived the scheme, carried it through and simuiated four or five different people. Circumstantial evidence is only as' strong as its weakest link. The defence will show that each and everyone of tlic iinlcs is defective. Our defence is no: to endeavour to establish a doubt in the evidence of the Crown witnesses. We are out to show you that he did not do it. " Dr. Mazengarb referred to grave mis takes made in other cases by expert witnesses. He outlined the Dreyfus case of 1894 when a man was eonvicted on the faulty evidence of a hand writing expert. Dr. Mazengarb also referred to tlie envelope whieh had been received at the bank containing the receipt. Accused's fingerprints had been found on it but that could be accounted for. "On the inside of the envelope is an unidentified print. It is not Millett 's nor anyone 's who handled the envelope after it entered the bank. Find the person who put the print inside and you will probably find the person who is responsible for all these maldeeds," he added. Accused gave evidence of his previous employment service in the Ariuy and his studies in theology. He said ■ he had been interviewed by DetectiveSergeant Hogan at the Reserve Bank, Hogan' said: "We know it was you who did it. We want you to confess to the crime." Hogan had said he did not believe witness had done it on his own but that witness was a tool in the bank. Witness had said: "I had nothing whatever to do with it." The initials on the memorandum of transfer were definitely not his, said witness. He had not received the documents.