SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 64, 10 December 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

$ . ALLEGED ATTEMPTED THEFT OF CARGO SHIP'S FIREMAN ACQUITTED • The quarterly! sessions of the Supreme Court were resumed yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Hoslung. George Sullivan,.a fireman, was charged with attempted theft of cargo in the steamship Paparoa at' Auckland on. October 17, 3918. ■ . . Accused, for whom Mr. A. Dunn appeared, pleaded not guilty. Alec Cole, second ollicer of the ship, stated that on the night of October 17 he was on duty; and during his rounds ho discovered that a corner hatch of No. 1 hold was open.' He looked down, and saw accused standing' on.the first deck. A ■corner of the hatchway on the first deck was also open. He ordered accused on dock, and theit went below to investigate. '■ He found a lamp hanging under a hatch throwing a light -below, and in

such manner as to -throw no light -upwards. His'investigations below showed that nothing' had been tampered- with. Accused; who was sober "enough to climb up a rope from below;- said he did not know how he got below.:;. At any-rate, he had no business to be in the hold.. - Crof&examined' by Mr; •. Dunn, witness said that accused ■' was' doing nothing when ho saw him. He did not hand the accused-over to tho police until the ship arrived at Wellington; as the-ship sailed'at six o'clock on the morning of October 18. ' i Arthur Cecil Brown, second ■ engineer on the Paparqa, said thataecused- joined the ship'in'London. Accused's duty iir, port was' to' assist the fourth engineer. Ho had no duty to take him to the hold. The chisel, 'filo,'bar,ai)d Vamp produced in the court 'to-the-engineer's store'-on- t'lto' ship.' He saw. accused on the night of tho alleged theft at the after end -of the ship. • Accused was under the influence of liquor, but not drunk. "' '.'■•' ' ■ In answer lo -Mr.' Dunn,, witness said th'nt accused performed his duties on tho way . out '■• satisfactorily, and witness would be glad to have him back. The deposition? of Detective Cox, whowas unable to attend.'were read. They detailed the "ciroumstances of accused's arrest. 'In a- statement niado. to the deponent, accused sa<l that ho found the hatch open, and went down to investigate. Mr. Dunn submitted that proof .of mere preparation was not sufficient to prove attempt The evidence submitted by the Crown proved only intention,, but to provo attempt it Was necessary to prove an overt act. . . His Honour held that there was suffi-' cient evidence tp-show that accused had something to do with the removal of the. hatch. Mr.. Dunn elected to address tho jury without calling evidence. Accused had made a statement to the detectives that ho went down-the hold to find out why a light was burning. It had been said that accused had no right to go below,, but was it not as inu-ih his duty, as ■ a member-of the ship's company, as the second officer to investigate? ' Pillage might have been going on, or the cargo might have been on fire. Accused denied any knowledge of the (/ implements found. There was no-evidence of an attempt to steal." All -tho evidence was that accused was standing oir the deck. Tho failure to hand accused over to the police at once showed that the second officer did not think that.there was anything peculiar in the happenings. The fact that there were two crowbars, and that tho. light was easily visible from above, and the general tenor of the evidence was that other-s had made their preparations to thieve, but ■ were disturbed. The evidence, was. entirely consistent with,his innocence. Tho Crown liad not made out. even the elements .of After being addressed -by His. Honour, the jury made,,a .brief retirement, and returned a verdict of not. guilty.