NO CASE ESTABLISHED

Evening Star, Issue 19793, 17 February 1928, Page 7

NO CASE ESTABLISHED

CHARGE DISMISSED At the Police Court this morning the magistrate Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) held that no prima facie case had been established against Robert Hall Rogers, who was charged with stealing a quantity of goods valued at £2, the property of James Hall, the case being dismissed. During the proceedings the charge was amended to read 'that the goods were the property of Mary Elizabeth Hall. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. James Hall, retired railway servant, said that*ho and his wife had adopted the accused when he was a year old. Witness and his wife went away on January 31. The premises had been securely locked, the goods (produced) being inside. The accused had loft the house on-January 28, and had no right to enter it. When witness returned he found that the property (producecl) had been removed from tho house in his absence. The goods belonged to bis wife. “ You’ve had some difference with the accused, haven’t you?” queried Mr Irwin in cross-examination.

/‘ Yes, over his partiality to beer.” replied witness.' “Didn’t the accused and your wife take sides against you because you had another lady in the house?” asked Mr Irwin.

Witness: “ There was another lady in the house for six weeks, but the old lady didn’t object.” Mr Irwin: “Isn’t it a fact that 3’ou wore in the Nornianby Hotel with the lady in question?”—“No.” Mr Irwin: “But didn’t your wife object to that lady’s habits—to her ndness for beer?”

Witness mumbled an inaudible reply

To Mr Irwin: Witness said he could not understand how his wife came to write to the accused that he (witness) was selling off. It was only “tittletattle.” Witness did not know whether the iron among the goods in question belonged to the accused, and, though the latter may have gone to get his own iron and little treasures his mother valued, he had no right to break in. The Magistrate: “How did the proceedings come before the police?” Chief-detective Cameron said that a telephone message had been received, and a constable went and saw Hall.

At this stage the magistrate intimated that no prima facie charge of theft had been established, and he dismissed the charge. Any action for Jhe_ recovery of the goods could he the subject of legal proceedings.