SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2853, 18 August 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

PATENT . MEDICINE CASES Mr. Justice Chapman presided at tlie Supremo Court yesterday. Edward Hellawell, grocer, of Coiirtenay Place, was charged with receiving patent medicines and other goods, of a total value of £143 7s.- 9d., the property of Sharland aud Co., Ltd., knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr. V. 11. Meredith appeared lor tlie Crown, and Mr. T. M. Wilford represented the accused. Mr. P. E. Church was foreman of the i« r y-' , , . Cyril Mactarlane deposed to having purchased goods from Connor (who was found guilty the previous day ' on a similar charge), for which witness paid by cheque. The prices on the invoices were lower than the wholesale prices. James Henry Bray, formerly storeman, to Sharland and Co., admitted having stolen the goods and 'giving them to a mall mimed Morris. He had' no knowledge of Eellawell in the matter. Evidence was also given by Detective Mason aud others on the same lines as in. the Lower Court. No evidence wa6 called for tlie defence. Mr. TVilford, in his address to the jury, contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that Hellawell had received tho goods knowing them to he stolen. The man who stole the goods was Bray, and the man who received the goods was Connor. Connor was Hollafrell's betting partner, and because of this partnership it was sought to connect Hellawell with the crime. The G'rowii did not know from whom Hellawell bought the g'oods or tlie price--he paid for them. In tlie case of the sale of goods to a grocer in Palnierston North, which was made "by a man named Hill, it on the tag that the goods were sent by Hellawell. Tho accused was thus placing himself, in the hands of a man whom ho did not know. That was not' the attitude of a criminal, or of a man who knew that he was'handling stolen property. Tlie same applied to the sale to Levin and Co.

In His Honour's address to the jury he pointed out that those others wildbought stolen goods were immediately able to give a satisfactory explanation, while the accused liad not done so, and that was the basis of the prosecutiou. , '

Tho jury were out for four hours, and reported that, tliey wore unable to agree on a verdict.

Mr.' Meredith applied for a new trial, which was fixed for to-day.