LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1288, 17 November 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

RAID ON MOANA'S TOBACCO. EIGHT MEN ARRAItiNEBTHREE OF THEM ACQUITTED, SOME WEIRD STORIES.

Eight wharf labourers were crowded into tho dock lit tho Supremo Court yesterday to answer a charge of stealing about 221b. of Havelock tobacco from the Union Company's steamer Moans. It was allowed that tho theft had been committed wliilo the Moaua was working cargo at Wellington on October it The value of tho tobacco was set down as .EG Is. 0(1. Tho men accused were Alfred .Nelson, Donald .M'Phorson, Anton Olson,'John Kindle, William Young, Fred. Lindsay Backhouse, Jauios Wright, and Harry Douglas. . Tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) was on tho Bench. Air. T. Neava conducted tho prosecution. Mr. A. I-. Herdman appeared for Anton Olson, and Mr. A. H. Himimarsh appeared for the remainder of-tho defendants. Pleas ot not guilty were entered in eatih case,

Taken to the Shed for Search. Evidence for tho prosecution, wag on similar lines to that givon in the Lower Court. On October IV and 18, about Ml) cases of tobacco had been shipped by tho Moanaat Melbourne for conveyance to Wellington. Tho case of Havelock tobacco produced in Court. had been one of tho number. When tho Moana reached Wellington the tobacco had been unloaded, and the case was discovered in a ivharf shed in a damaged condition. Detectives Andrews and Lewis wero sent for, and thirteen men were summoned from the hold, and taken into B Shed to be searched. It was then found that sis of (hem had certain tobacco in their possession.

How They Explained Things. Hindle had eight plugs. By way of accounting for them, he stated that this collection had been given to him "by a man in tho hold that day, and that he would know the man again if to saw him."

Backhouse then stepped up, and said that ho had had some tobacco, and that he had found it on the deck on the Moaua that day, had brought it ashore with him, and also that he did not know that any tobacco was missing. Later, Backhouse produced his coat. This was found to contain 31 plugs of tobacco. All tho men stated that they had not "&een or heard anything of the missing tobacco." Wright was found to have two plugs which he said he had bought at the wharf store (one that day and one on the previous day). Young had no tobacco when searched, but there was produced a plug which Young was said to have thrown away. Hindle, when asked to pick out the man who had given him the eight plugs, pointed to Young. Douglas had one plug of Havelock, which ho said he had bought at tho wharf store at about 10 minutes to one that day. There was a small piece off the corner of that plug. Olsen had sis plugs, which ho said he had bought at a shop in townhe didn't know tho name of the shop, nor the name of the street. When in the shed Olsen was tho only man who would not put a coat on. A coat was found on a case, but, though it fitted him, Olssn denied that it was his. In the coat were 15 plugs.

Nelson had two pieces of Havelock tobacco—one nearly a plug, and tho other about half a plug. These ho said ho had bought at the Chinaman's shop opposite the Bank of New Zealand—one plug the previous night, and the other next morning.

M'Pherson. had two plugs, one of which had a piece off tho corner. Ho said ho had bought them that day from a shop in Cuba Street nest to tho Imperial Hotel. -,■■.-, .. ; .. ', Tho fl'vo other men had no Havelock tobacco about them, so they wero allowed to go.

The Sort of Defence, For the defence, Mr. Hindnaarsh stated that ho proposed to call several of tho accused, who, ho thought, would bo able to answer the charge satisfactorily. Tho first of these was Alfred Nelson, who declared ■ that the tobacco found on him had been purchased on October 27. After tho charge had been laid against him ho went back to the Chinaman's bhop where he had obtained the tobacco, and asked if the Chinaman remembered him, but the Chineso replied: "Uβ forget altogether." Harry Douglas stated that the tobacco found "on him had been purchased at the wharf store. Jame3 Wright declared that he had purchased two plugs of tobacco (found on him) at the wharf store. William Young explained that a plug of tobacco had been given him by a man -on the wharf, and that ho had dropped it so that it would not bo found : John 'Dickie of tho wharf boekstall, stated that he clearly remembered sellin" two plugs of tobacco to Wright; on Friday, October 27. He could not call to mind a sale, to Douglas, but he added that Douglas had been a cash customer for a long time. Witness had also known somo of the others us customers. Mr. Hiiidmarsh then put in tho evidenco given by the chief officer in tho Court below.

Rest of the Defence. Mr. Herdraan called no evidence. Mr. Hindmarsh, in addressing fho_ jury, remarked that the oaso against Nelson, M'Pherson, Wright, and Doug-las differed from the case against Young, as tho case against the latter differed from the case against Backhouse and Hindle. There was practically no evidence against the first four, and in the caie of Young there was no evidence to support a charge of theft. Counsel contended-that there was nothing before tho jury tu show that the case of tobacco had not been opened in Melbourne before the Moaiw left there. Stress was also laid ou tho fact that the Crown had not'called tho fourth officer, who had been present during unloading operaHans.

Air. Neave replied at somo leaigth to the arguments of Mr. Hindmarsh. Was the Right Course Followed? Mr. Hordman contended that the Crown had failed to prove that tho tobacco found on bis client had been stolen. Bearing in mind the fact that the man was a foreigner, and . could not speak English intelligently, the detective should have taken steps to clear thn matter up. It was not for Olsen to disprove the charge., it was for the police to prove it. His Honour summed up, and the jury retired at i p.m. They returned at , r i minutes to !> o'clock with a verdict of guilty of theft in the cases uf Olseu, Uin(lle, and Backhouse. Guilty of receiving in the caso of Young was part of the verdict, whtlo Nelson, MTherson, Wright, and Douglas were found not guilty and discharged. Smtenco of tho pr'isonera found guilty was , deferred until Saturday '

UNUSUAL DEFENCE, JURY DO NOT TAKE IT UP. An unusual defence was that set up in tho caso in which Edward Kosenberg was charged with lia.ving received from a. youth, 175 bicycle tubes, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. The tyres wore tbs property of the Duulop Rubber Company. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for tho accused, who pleaded not guilty. At the outset, Mr. Wilford said ho was prepared to admit that the tubes wore tho property of tho Dunlop Rubber Company, that the accused had no right to take them, that they wero in his pes.wpsian, and were brought to his place by boys. At the samo time, counsel wished it to Ixi understood that he did not admit that nriuscd remembered anything of the transactions. Evidence ''or the prosecution was given by Maurice l<eslie Graham, Cecil Herbert Ellison, Jolui William Curlew, and Detective Mason. For the defence, evidence was (-ailed on the lines followed in the Loner Court. It appeared that on Good Triday, 1910, Rosenberg was concerned in a motorbicycle accident, and sustained a frnotur'u of the base of tin; skull, being unconscious for tisht doys. Sinco then he

had h.id peculiar turn.-, a-:id lapses of .lorgi.ltiilii:«h. Kvidenre was al.-u given as Id In* good character prior In (lin ncI'ldoiit, <iml his clnum'd demeanour

Willies,,,.* flip the defence we-ro Uγ. TT. ■'. -M'l.mii. Harold W.-lil. White, lion. f. M. Luke. M.1,.!' , ., Reginald Xiirniiin Abb..tl, .lolin AVfh. I.Vade, H. M. ],Wnliom. m\t\ ft. .1. Sinilh.

.Mr. U'ilford, in (ho jury, suwslnl lhal. ii|, till 11,.. Hi,,,, ~f th e accident tin. aecii-nl wa.s of normal disposition, mid almost l.rilliant, nl Ms trade, ('ounsi.l suggested thai the jury should liud thd prisoner guilty, without intent, Ho did nvt want Hum to find a. \erdiot ill' "not guilty on Iho ground uf insanity," bcwiuso that would by getting hi.M mit ot tfaul to land him in .■'. lima'ic asylum.

-U this stage, his Honour said that if Hie jurors respected their oaths they in list find nun tif l.wn things, either guilty or not gtiilly on tlie ground of insanity. Mr. Wilfoi'd said In; did not want to land his client, in a lunatic asylum, where he might Iw worse off than in gaol. His Honour: Well, I have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Wilfoid: I have, vour Honour. That is tho only thing I have anything to do with.

Ill's Honour: What do you suggest? Mr. Wilford: Temporary aborraticn of intellect.

His Honour: That is tho samo thing. Tho jurv must tako their law from me. If I luako a mistake, you have your remedy.

After somo further discussion, Mr. Wilford was proceeding to reply whon

His Honour: 1 am not going to argue, with you. You go ou, Mr. Wilford. Mr. Wilford then concluded his address. Mr. Neavo did not address the Court.

His Honour, in summing up, reminded tho jury that there was absolutely no evidence of Rosenberg's condition of mind at the timo tho tyres came into his possession.

Tho jury retired at 5.J5 p.m., and returned .it G. 25 p.m. with a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

His Honour: Gentlemen, I will pay attention to your recommendation. 1 think that is the only verdict you could find. Sentence will bo passed to-morrow,. Tho prisoner was admitted to baiU