CURIOUS THEFT CASE

Dominion, 14 August 1919, Page 6

CURIOUS THEFT CASE

A YOUNG MAN CONVICTED

PROBATION GRANTED

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday William James Williamson, u young man, was charged with the llieft of a gold chain, two suits of clothes, two pairs of boots, two pairs_of shoes, and a quantity of tools and other goods valued at M\) lis. 3d., the propeny of Annie Duffy, of Queen's Drive. Lyall Bay. ill , . ,W\ U. Ale'uisii appeared for the defence.

Tho case was heard by Mr. 13. Page, S.M. Chief-Detective Baid rhat during tho month of July u\e accused and others visited the complainant's home. Shortly after the visit, Airs. Dulfy missed a number of articles, the majority of which were afterwards fcund in tlie possession of the accused. •Maurice .urmknian, second-hand dealer, in business in Courtenay Place, said that on July 7 the accused sold to him six or seven pairs of golf lie gave his name as "It. Jackson," and • uis address as llalaitai. I Walter Smart, pawnbroker, gavo evidence that he purchased from the ac- , c\ised the single-barrelled shutguu produced m Court. (Tliu gun was later, identified by Mrs. Duffy as hers.) Annie Duffy, married woman, stated that she was the complainant, bhe knew the accused slightly. He first came to her house about July 18 or 21 last—on a Sunday night. Two men. named Moore and Carnegie, weT« with him. She know Moore and Carnegie. Th«y entered the house, lit witnesss invitation, about i.M in the evening. Witness went to see them go about 0.15. iimS she could not find the key of thy fruit door. She had some whisky during the evening, and it had a considerable effect on her. . Accused came tilono on tho Monday night. Witness said ho wasn't wanted. Carnegie and Moore tame later.. On the following morning witness missed a number of articles. Witness identined as her property a miscellaneous assortment of articles"(chiefly.clothing) that was spread'before her in Court. She considered that the articles must have been taken away between Jul> 20 and July i M On discovering her loss witness sent , hJr little girl across to r.he accused a House. Accused's wife and his brother came across to witness's house. After a conversation, accused's wife sent .ho brother home, and lie back with fcevcral of tho articles that witness had just identified as hers, in the evening, other goods were returned, and from under the porchway of witness s house the accused's wife extorted more articles The missing front doorfcej was. turned by the accused. On i the inornin" of August 2 witness found two sweaters and a shirt on t'ne porch bhe We raited accused's house, and found kri^^kerehic? l^^ uied an imputation that she often got R n retried to above, or any of the other a tee! with the theft of which ho wa= phireed The value of the articles now v Id be about m They had all been worn, however, and would now be woith the evidence given by the acwised as to the value of her pr°Pertj. Chfef Detective Boddam suggested that the charge be reduced. The! Court accordingly reduced the charge. The result was that the charge was no louger odb upon winch the accused had to be tried 'by the Supreme C< Tho accused elected to'be dealt with summarily, and entered a plea of not "'"Further evidence was given by Fred. Carnegie, Clarence Moore, and Henry Williamson (brother of accused). Constable Hollis said that he arrested the accused and took him to the Central Station, where he admitted the tnett of a brown suit of clothes and a parcel af tools Witness searched accused s house and there found some of the property exhibited in the court. To Mr. Mcllisht. Accused stated to witness that a man who was at Mrs. Duffy s asked him to carry the clothes and the tools awi\y. '~,,, j Constable Price said that accused claimed to have been given by Mrs. Duffy tho stockings and the gun that he sold to the secoud-haud dealers. Hβ also alle"ed that a man named Jack gave him (at Mrs. Duffy's place) the goods that ho later returned to Mrs. Duffy. Accused did not describe "Jack,'- but said that he would know him again. This closed the case for the police. The defence, said Mr. Mollis!), was (hat the accused received from a man addressed by the others as "Jack" the goods that lie returned" to Mrs. Dufty. "Jack" was one of the party at Mrs. Duffy's. Wiliamson gave evidence in his own behalf, lieferring to tho Monday night, he-said that ho accompanied Carnegie and Moore to Mrs. Duffy's. There was another man present whom Mrs. Duffy was calling "Jack.""Jack" said that he had a few tools and a, suit, and he asked witness to take them over tp his place. He took the things across and went back to Mrs. Duffy's. He left them in the bedroom, and expected "Jack" to call for them. After he came home from work next day witness's wife slid that the articles had been stolen and that she had returned them. He said that he was glad_ to hoar that the things had. been given back, because if they had bsen stolon he wished to have nothing to do with them. Tho gun and the stockings spoken of during the case were gifts from Mrs. Duffy. To Chief-Detective Boddam: If Mrs. Duffy said that Moore, Carnegie and ho were tho only peoplo in the bouse on the Monday nielit, sho was not speaking the truth.' "Jack" came in by the backway and Mrs. Duffy said good-night to him. lire. Duffy was in bed when "Jack" gave tho things to witness to take over to his house.

Mr. Page: Would it not have been quite ns easy for "Jack" to call for the thing-3 at Mrs'. Duffy's house ns at youre ? —"Tlißt did not dawn on me. I thought 1 was doing a favour."' 'I lie Magistrate said tlin.t ho was convinced that a conviction should be' entered against the accused in respect ol two articles—a suit of clothes find a bag of tools. The evidence seemed to surest that others were concerned in the purloining of some of the,, goods that 'bad been mentioned in the case. The presence of a suit arid the tools in accused's house had not. been satisfactorily accounted for. It seemed clear that Mrs. Duffy's house was somewhat loosely and irregularly conducted, and that lire. Duffy's recollection of what happened was not good. Mr. Hellish asked $hat. the accused, being a first offender, should be granted probation. Williamson had two children, and his wife was in hospital, seriously ill. Mi\ l'nge granted probation for twelve months nnd ordered the accused to be prohibited from obtaining liquor. He also imposed tho condition that during tho period of his probation Willia-ison should not enter billiard saloons.