MISSING RABBITSKINS

Evening Star, Issue 21748, 16 June 1934, Page 10

MISSING RABBITSKINS

ALLEGED THEFT FRDM FREEZING WORKS TWO MEN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL 1 ‘ X do not propose to comment on the evidence. It might not be strong evidence, but there might be alternative charges. of receiving property knowing it to have been stolen,” remarked Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in,the Police Court yesterday afternoon, when he committed William Boyd and Angus MacDonald to the Supreme Court for • trial on a joint charge of. breaking and entering the warehouse of the Alexandra Freezing Company on or about May 13. and stealing six bags of rabbitskins, valued at £3O. Another man, Aubrey Preston, was jointly charged with the accused, but the case against'him. was dismissed; the magistrate holding that no prima facie case had been established. The three accused were represented by Mr B. S. Irwin, and Chief-detective B. Young conducted the prosecution. John Pratt, manager of the Alexandra Freezing Works, said that on or about 11 a.m." on May 13 he, in company with his son, locked up the works, and on leturning tho following day found that the lock of the packing shed i had been broken and all the rabbitskins stolen. The lock of the freezing shed had also been forced open and a quantity of skins stolen; The engine room door had been burst open, but nothing, was stolen from there. Altogether six or seven bags at the outside had 1/eeii stolen. About half the skins were crutch-gutted, and witness identified the skins produced ns those stolen from the j works. The remaining skins were trapped, poisoned, or shot skins. He did not know'rany of the accused. The skins were freezing' work skins, and could only be obtained where there •were freezing carcasses for London. There were two freezing works in Southland, but he doubted whether the skins could possibly have come from there, because they did not have the' same quality ,as the Otago skins. In regard to the crutch-gutted skins, he could definitely identify them as skins from his works, because' no one else would skin them that way. ' ■ ■ ; , Ivan John Pratt corroborated ‘ the evidence of his father. He had filled

the bags (produced) and could recognise one of them by a white substance ' in the bag. The skins were hot' in the same order as when he had placed them there, having apparently been rearranged. ' : \ ' • Edward Kennelly, manager of Irvine and Co., said that the accused saw him in the store on the morning of June 7, Boyd said he had a certain number of rabbitskins. for sale, and that he had been recommended to come to witness. ; He asked Boyd to bring the skins-to the store and he would get market value for them. He arrived half an hour later with the skins, _ and the accused Preston was with him. He asked Boyd if he had been buying skins, as they looked like factory skins"to him. Boyd replied in the affirmative. 'Witness was suspicious about the matter, and asked Boyd for his name. . He was reluctant' at first, hut gave the name of W, Blackmofe. He then put his classers on to the skins, and both Preston and Boyd left, the latter stating he would be back at 1.30 p.m. Boyd returned to the store about 2 p.m. and was seen by the police. Witness knew < the accused MacDonald. ; Cross-examined, . witness said that there had been an auction sale of skins'the day before. Boyd was sorty., * he’had : not put the skins into the sale, ' but he had been advised not to do / «o. With the exception of being there when the skins were Preston > took no /part in the transaction. He would not swear that Preston was there on the first occasion. There was no secrecy about the sale of the skins. Russell Fairbairn, an employee of Irvine and .Company, said that Preston came to the works on the first three visits, and he saw Preston in the street on the fourth occasion when Boyd w as taken away. Witness informed Pres- ' ton that he was wanted inside, and on being told that Boyd had been . arrested he expressed ’an , exclamation of' surprise. Constable M. Brown said that , at2 p.m. on June 7 ,he was standing in Irvine’s store when Boyd was: in the course of selling the skins. .Witness informed Boyd that the skins were , similar to ones which had been stolen, and asked him to go to the police station On the way to the detective office Bovd said he knew nothing aboutit; he was selling the skins for another i man, whose name he would not give. At the detective office. Boyd admitted that MacDonald had given the skins to him to sell as he had a car. He said that MacDonald was waiting in the bar of the Empire Hotel. When questioned by witness MacDonald pleaded innocence in the transaction Witness then read a statement made by Boyd concerning the transaction; Boyd had said: that MacDonald had given him the skins to sell. To Mr Irwin: As far as witness knew that part of the statement was correct. Detective Taylor gave evidence of an interview with MacDonald afthe police station. Later witness went on to the Oval Hotel and saw Preston, who said he knew, nothing about the rabbitskins. He then stated that he accompanied Boyd to Irvine’s store with six bags ' of rabbitskins. He accom- , ■ panied witness to the detective office and made a statement regarding the matter. In the statement _ Preston said that he was of the opinion that the skins belonged to MacDonald, and he had negotiated with Boyd for their sale. He was convinced that Boyd had nothing to do jvith the stealing

'of the skins. A statement was also obtained from MacDonald, who denied that he had stolen the skins or had been in Alexandra. He had been asked by a man called Reynolds to store tho skins, and witness had stored them at his sister’s place. Reynolds then made an appointment a few days inhead, saying if he . did not turn up witness was to sell the skins. Reynolds failed to keep the appointment, and MacDonald then arranged- with the accused- Boyd to sell the skins. Since then he had not seen Reynolds and had been unable to locate him. Counsel for the defence said that there was no case against Preston whatever. When tho signed statements of the accused were considered it was obvious that the transaction had been carried out by Boyd and MacDonald. Ho had' been present at Irvine’s store when the skins- were being sold, hut any innocent person could have been present with Boyd on that day and known nothing about the thefts'. -It was absurd to ask the court to assume that Preston knew the skins were stolen and that be knew he was disposing of stolen skins. The very expression he used when Fairbairn told him that Boyd' had been taken away by a polieeman was Just the sort of expression a man vv’Ould have used when he suspected there was something fishy about the circumstances. Such a case against Preston must, he submitted, be dismissed. It was not a case of three men being in concert.

In reply to the magistrate, Chief-de-tective loung said that he had nothing to say except that Preston was in company with Boyd, and they were in possession of recently stolen goods. The magistrate ruled that there was no pnma tacie case against Preston, and the charge against him would therefore oe dismissed. Dealing with Boyd’s part in the affair, Mr Irwin said that Boyd’s statement had been , found to bo correct where it was possible to check it up. He could not have been within 100 miles of" Alexandra when the goods were stolen. The most that could be argued was that Boyd might be charged with being in possession'of-property recently dishonestly obtained. Counsel suggested that MacDonald’s explanation to Boyd that he was afraid to take -the skins because Kennedy would deduct money he owed the firm was reasonable. The evidence went to show that MacDonald met these two men when they were on the eve of going to Christchurch, and were having their batteries charged. They were not < Boyd’s skins, so when Kennedy asked him his name ho had to think-out some other name, and said Vw. Blackmore.” If Boyd had any inkling that a robbery had been committed when Kennedy said the skins looked like' factory skins, would he_ have gone back later ? ~Counsel submitted Boyd had discharged the, onus upon ' him. was not in a position to produce the man who stole the skins, it was a fact, that the previous day, at Balclutha, MacDonald had been charged with, assisting in the poaching of opossums, and a man named Rey-> nolds had been charged with him. The man for whom MacDonald said he sold the skins' was Reynolds’s brother, and was •by no means a myth. The. man knew that .MacDonald and Reynolds were mates.- There was no question that the skins were the stolen skins, but there was no suggestion in the evidence that MacDonald was in Alexandra. If MacDonald was not there somebody else must have stolen the skins and given them to him to sell. Counsel suggested that his explanation, was quite reasonable. He suggested also that Boyd had been led into this affair quite inno-, cently. Evidence was .given by Angus MacDonald; who said that on May 13 he was between' Balclutha and Kaitahgata poaching opossums. ... He. was accompanied by a man named William Reynolds, and witness and Reynolds were charged on Thursday at Balclutha with poaching. They were convicted, and lined £ls. Prior to May 13 witness had been in Dunedin. He had hot been in Central Otago since 1921. Witness had a conversation in Dunedin about skin prices with a man who told him that he was a 'brother of the man, Reynolds, and asked him if he had a big place to, store some skins until the'sale was over. Witness told Reynolds that he could take the skins to a shed at his sister's place at .724 Cumberland street. The skins were taken there on June 5 m a car driven by Reynolds, and witness assisted him to store them. _ Reynolds told witness that if he did not seo him the following day witness was to take the skins to Irvine’s the day after tho sale. Witness met Boyd, who he knew had a car, and asked him to take the skins along, as witness owed Kehnelly money, which would be deducted if they were sold in his name. It was' not till he was arrested that witness knew tlm skins were stolen. Chief-detective Young questioned witness about his opossum poaching activities, and asked him how many skins he had secured. Witness replied that he had got as many as he had been caught with. ” Naturally,”, said the chief detective., “ How many was that ?” 11 About thirty,”- said witness. Witness said; that he had never been guilty of poaching before. He had been caught the first time. Aiid how did you plead?” asked Mr Young. Witness said that he pleaded; pot guilty to poaching, .but guilty to aiding and-abetting.. In answer to further questions, ho said that his motor vehicle was a Maxwell Chrysler. He would be surprised to learn that a Maxwell Chrysler had' been seen in Alexandra on the night of the robbery.. Asked if he had made any effort to find the man Reynolds,, witness said that he had looked around town for him. Mr Irwin said that a warrant was out for the other, Reynolds, and when lie was arrested the police would probably

find his brother. Witness owed Kennelly £2-) or £3O on a car he had bought from his firm in 7928 or 1929. He admitted to a conviction for theft in 1921 and to converting a motor car, while ho had also been convicted of assault. , The Magistrate said that he did not propose to comment on the evidence. Jt might not be strong evidence, but therp might be alternative charges of receiving property knowing it to have been stolen. The two accused would be committed for trial. The accused reserved their defence, and bail was granted as before, arrangements to be made for the accused to report to the police.