A JUDGE’S DIRECTION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 265, 3 August 1921, Page 7

A JUDGE’S DIRECTION

JURY’S AMBIGUOUS VERDICT INTERESTING SUPREME COURT CASE CHARGES OF THEFT Interesting legal points, which were ultimately referred to the Court of Appeal, were raised in the Supreme Court yesterday, before His. Honour Mr. Justice Reed, in connection with the charges against Frederick Walter Roscoe, late head storeman for the Empire Manufacturing Company, and Henry Charles Holland, factory manager for the same company, whom it was alleged had stolen goods valnod at -878 10s. 6d. from the company’s premises. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared for the Crown, and Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for the accused. When the hearing of the case was continued yesterday, evidence was given by Albert Edward Turner, carrier’ to the effect that Roscoe had asked him to store a quantity of goods for a time, and when witness called at the company’s premises with his lorry Roscoe helped him to load the goods, which were contained in three barrels and fifteen cases. Witness had no idea that there was anything dishonest about the removal of the goods. Theodore Rupert Furness, an employee of the company, deposed that Holland had also assisted to load the lorry. Detective Walsh put in a signed statement made by Roscoe in which he contended the accused; admitted taking the goods. His explanation was that he had decided to steal some goods from the company in order to assist him in starting business on his own account. Accused had also said that Holland intended to go into business with him, and knew that the stolen goods were in Turner’s possession, i • . . Detective-Sergeant Andrews put in a written statement by Holland, who had offered to "squarq" the matter up. This closed the case for the Crown. For the defence Mr. Treadwell called both accused, who swore that they had no intention of stealing the goods. They had merely taken the goods with the full intention of paying for them some weeks later, when they were to sever their connection with the firm, in order to commence business, on their own account. To this end they had kept a docket on which were recorded all the goods taken from the warehouse. In acting aS they did. they were simply exercising a privilege of all the employees. They admitted that the goods were removed without the knowledge of their employers. A Qualified Verdict. The jury retired at 3.10 p.m., and returned- at. 4.35 with the following announcement: "We find both accused guilty with a strong l recommendation to leniency on account of insufficiency of proof that they did not intend ■ to pay for the goods.” His Honour said that he could not ac-' ccpt a verdict in that form. He added that, he had directed, the jury that it wiis necessary for the. accused to satisfy them that they had intended to pay for the goods. Tha onus in this respect was on the accused, not the .Crown. It would bo necessary for the jury to retire in order to submit their verdict in proper form. Mr. Treadwell: With the greatest respect, Your Honour, before the jury retires I desire to submit that on their finding it is a verdict of not guilty. His Honour: I will take a note of your point. The jury then retired, and finally returned with a verdict of guilty in the case of both accused, with the strongest recommendation to mercy. His Honour intimated that he would reserve the question of law as to whether his direction to the jury, was correct to the Court of Appeal, along with the point raised by Mr. Treadwell as to whether the first finding of the jury should not stand and the prisoners be discharged on the ground of insufficient evidence.

ALLEGED THEFT OF HUTTER. Only ono other case was taken yesterday, and that was. a charge against a waterside worker named Hendry Mearns, of stealing button valued at J 25, the property of some person or persons unknown, and, in tho alternative, of receiving butter. Mr. I’. S. K. Macassey -appeared for the Crown; and Mr.' A. B. Sievwright defended. The outline of the case was that while the police were visiting the accused's re* sidence on account of a domestic difference, one Edith M'Morran taxed Mearns with having' assaulted, her and with having stolen a quantity of butter. The woman’s story was that Mearls had brought heme fSpm the wharf at various times buttci - wrapped in mutton cloth and concealed under his shirt and singlet. Mearns’s explanation was that he had obtained butter at times from members of * ships’ crews and had paid for it. During the hearing of tho case in the lower Court the woman denied several of the statements made by her to the police, and tendered the explanation that, being under the influence of liquor at the’ time, she had made wild statements. She further stated that a friend who worked on a coastal boat had given her butter and other stores in payment for board. This had enabled her to set about building up a stock of butter against any possible rise in price. fa Court was proceeding to take evi- . dence on the lines adduced in the Magistrate’s Court when the adjournment .was taken till ten o’clock this morning.