PECULIAR THEFT CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 5 February 1921, Page 1

PECULIAR THEFT CASE

THE MAID IN CHARGE.

JURY ORDERS ACQUITTAL

WELLINGTON, Feb, 2 Cases of theft were heard before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman, at the Supreme Court yesterday, - Horace Smith, was charged with the theft from a dwelling at 7, Mortimer terrace, Wellington, on November 17th, of a quantity of jewellery valued at £2B, the property of Mrs Mary Bradley ; a pair of boots owned by her husband, and valued at £2 ss; a gold ring and £2 in money, to a total value of £3 10s, belonging to Constance Coleman. Mr I’. S. K. Macassey, of the Crown Law Office, conducted the case for the prosecution, and Air A. B. Sievwright appeared for the accused. Mr Edward Draper was foreman of the jury. The accused pleaded not guilty. LEFT THE MAID IN CHARGE. M ary Elizabeth Blanche Bradley said that on the evening of November 15th last she left home for a few days, leaving her maid, Miss Coleman, in charge of the two children. On her return, on the night of the 17th, she found that certain articles of jewellery, rallied af LA’S, had disappeared. To His Honour: She saw signs of the room having been disturbed. VISITORS MAKE FREE.

Constance Coleman said that she had known accused for about three months Batson, a friend of Smith. On the evening of November ltitli, after Mrs Bradley’s departure, Batson rang up, and according to an arrangement between them came to the house the followiig morning. They went into witness’s room to see a photo of Smith. She then left him in the room in order to admit Smith, who had come to the door. Later, while she was answering the telephone Batson and Smith went into Mrs Bradley’s bedroom, remaining there for about a quarter of an hour. They refused to conic out when she asked them to do so. Smith said that lie was reading a hook when they left the Bouse. At about 11.30 a.m. she found that, a ring and £2 in money had been removed from her handbag. She stayed in the house till Mrs Bradley’s return, and no one else came into the

house that night. Smith had been to see her on the previous evening. To Mr Sievwright: She could not remember whether Smith had been at the house at night time on at least two previous occasions. She had never previously missed anything from the bouse. Batson was the only person with her in the house on the occasion of the morning visit until Smith arrived a quarter of an hour later. As far as she was aware Smith did not 'ave a pair of hoots, or any -other article, from the house in his possession when he departed. !t was possible that the house might have been entered by other persons, who might have -tolen the articles. CONTRADICTOR V STATEMENTS. To His Honour:. Although the front door was locked it was possible that entrance might have been effected by it her means. Questioned by Mr Sievwright, witness said that on the afternoon of November Kith she had spoken to Smith | in the city. Mr Sievwright: So that when you made a definite statement to counsel for the prosecution that you were not out of the house you were not strictly certain ? —No.

Continuing, witness swore that Smith was not in her bedroom on the morning nf the visit. In reply to Mr Mncassey, witness said she really could not reinemUn whether she was out of the house on the Tuesday afternoon or not. She recalled that she was away from the house on one afternoon, hut she could not recall whether it was on that particular day or not. She knew the ring was in her bedroom before the arrival of the accused and his friend. DETECTIVE’S EVIUENCE: Edward William Scott, detective sergeant, stationed at Wellington, read a statement he had secured form the accused when he arrested him on arrival at Wellington from the south, in which Smith accounted fqr his movements on November loth, Kith, 17tli and following days. Op November 17th, during a visit to Miss Coleman at .Mrs Bradley’s house, he had gone into Mrs Bradley’s room in order to see il he could see Batson, who was to wait fur him outside. He denied having removed anything trom the house, and Batson had told him that he had taken nothing. Subsequent to the visit to to house he and Batson had gone to Christchurch together as stowaways. Witness said that it was not possible for the accused to see his mate from the bedroom referred to. Batson had not yet been located. None of the missing articles had been recovered. This concluded the case for the Crown. No evidence was called for the defence. THE DEFENCE. Addressing the jury, Mr Sievwright said that they must find their verdict on proof and not on suspicion. Ti there was any doubt in their minds the accused must he given the benefit of that doubt, and the verdict returned accordingly. He claimed there was not one statement in the evidence which connected the accused with the theft. It apparod that the police had got the wrong man. He submitted they must take into consideration the possibility •of some other person having gained admittance to the house. It was significant that Smith, according to Miss Coleman’s evidence, had not been in her bedroom at all. His Honour told the jury that they had to judge whether the ease for the prosecution was a sufficiently strong one. None of the stolen property had been found on the person of the Accused. But the fact remained that he and his friend had trespassed in the