SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 September 1924, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

SiTTIXGS AT HOKITIKA

SATI’KDAY, SKRTEMISER 20.

(lie fore II is Honour, Justice Adams.)

His Honour took his seat at 10 a.m HEX v. GIBBONS.

Basil Charles Gibbons was charged with breaking by night the place of Peter Stephens, and with theft of and further with receivin'; the said goods knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr J. Hannan appeared for the accused and Mr I’ark for the Crown. (Continued) Peter Stephes being sworn, gave evidence that he was a fancy-goods deal -r and tobacconist, of Hokitika. Witness proceeded to give particulars ol the robbery at his shop on 12lh. January. and of the articles taken from the shop. To AM- Hannan—Saw Duncan outside the shop at 12. I") a.m. and asked what he was doing, and Duncan replied that he was waiting for Morgan to go to the brewery. Was satisfied the watch with the lady’s name on was in the show case when lie went to Reeflon on the Tuesday night, hut did not '.cc it on the Friday night of the robbery. David llccuan gave evident e that he resided in lievcll St., near Stephens shop. The morning ot the robbery he returned home nl mi 2.1 d a.m. from a dance. AY hen at the corner he saw someone rush out of Stephens door to the verandah post. The person stood there a. while and then went hack to the shop. Witness crossed the street and saw the person come out again. Witness stayed there for a while and then went inside hi- own home. He could not identify the man. To Mr llan I -The man was ahold .-,l't. (iiu. lie could not say whether it was the accused or anybody, as it was dark. I,collat'd I’ercival Duncan depos 'd he was a contractor rccentlv employed at PMt Island. At 'Xmas slaved at the Masonic Hotel. Accused was there part of the time. About ID to 12 flays after the robbery, was playing cards with (lihhons. Witness won and Gihhnns paid 18s and owed Ill's, (lihhons gave a wristlet wah'di (like that pioduced) to hold. Nont day (lihhons said if witness was satisfied with the watch ho could .have, it as In* could not get the money. Two nights after witness gave the watch to Mrs Herbert, ("ibhons also, gave hint an old watch, which witness gave to Meale. About midnight on the night of the rohherv witness left the Masonic to go up to the brewery with Morgan Jr. When in front of Stephens’ Morgan found he had left the brewery keys behind and tide', witness to wait while he went hack for them. While waiting Stephens came out of his shoo. A moment or two after Morgan came hack ami they proceeded to the brewery, returning to the Masonic about It Jo a.m. Witness was not in Stephens’ slum that night. To Mr llanmni —l.el’t the district about Kith. Fell. walking across Browning's Pass to Canterbury, and thence later to Chatham islands, lie was lirst questioned about the robbery

when there about three months after it happened. Margaret, llcrh'Tl dep.iscd she resided at Chi istchni'i'h. She was at Hokitika tor tile Exhibition. Knew Duiie.'iii. He gave her the watch (produced) about the end ol January. Horace James Meale deposed he was employed at Keller's Hotel. At the time of the rohherv was working til the Masonic Hotel. Was given a watch by paddy Duncan. It was not a new cue. lie put it in the lire, lie asked where it came from and lie was told to mind his own business. It luing so soon after the robbery he was dubious and to wash his hands ot the atlair he out it in the lire.

Charles John King, sergeant of police deposed as to enouirios made into the rubbery. On loth. F'cliruary Millies, went in a motor oil' to a point on the Takul ' i-l! imu read about a mile past the dredge.* with Oihboiis sour. I Ihe la I her of t lie a: '-Used | uho pointed to a stomp and told him that there was something o| interest. lit a hollow el the

slMinp found a number of ill" nriiile;. produced, (hi Mb. .unrcii ateiiM-d c.iine I o the nliioc of willies.- mid made a pan. p-sition that il he could tell witness all ahniit the Stephens rohherv. Would the person hi> called as a v. il lies', ’laid him it would depend on the value of the information. Told him to come hack the next niglu at 7 to get an auswtr. hut accused did mil e.iiue. Saw him some days later Inti accused said lie hail nothing to say. till 2'ilh. March recused came to the nllh-e al night ami said lie wanted lo leaie the district and wanted tiermission Irom v. it ness as

proliatioii t.llieer. (lave him jiermi..,'ioli to go. Accused then said lie would tell witness sum thing, lie said that the ~t ii(l' found on the Einiu road was part of Stephens' rubbery, mid ilm person lie spoke to witness al.oiit ealling as a witness referred lo hincell ((• ihhons). Thai the stuff found lie had shown his lather where il was on the same night. It was hidden hv him-

self (Gibbons), and Biddulph. ’llia Biddulph had asked him (witness) t go with him one afternoon, mul h stopped at. that, stump mid plmitei something, lie said that I’iddulpl had asked him when things blew over mid lie wrote for the slulf. would In send it to him. The articles were salt xe(|iieiitly produced to Stephens win identified them as his property, exc-ii the opossum skin, (iililams said la had previously that night driven ovci with Iris father, and had shown liin where the plant was. Clilihons denier miv knowledge of the rubbery, lit sai.l lie lir.sk saw tl.e proceeds of tin mliliery in tin* Masonic llnlel and tlial the persons who committed llie rubherv were Nash. Biihlnloh mid Duncan. To Mr Hannan (iihhous deelim'd tu make a statement.

(.Verge Xatlianii'l IliU'oril rlepoerl that he drove accused's father in a ear to the Bimu-’i'akiitai road. Went up the Itiimi flat about .7 to (I miles mid then was told to stop. Gibbous senr. and someone else got out mid came hack shortly, and then drove through Rimu home. The same niglil drove Kcrgt. King. (lililams senr. and Mr Murdoch to the same place when they get out. Could not sav who the somebody else was in the first drive. ‘•.Tames John Morgan demised at the time of the robbery lie was assistant at Mandl’s hrewerv. On that night at midnight asked Duncan to go to the brewery with witness who was going to work. Left the Masonic with Duncan between 12 and 1*2.M0 a.m. When near Stephens’ slum he found he had left the keys of the brewery and asked Duncan to wait while he went hack to get them. Went and got the keys mid rejoined Duncan, and they went lo the brewery and returned home between J mid 3.H0 a.m.

John B. Young il'-’nosed lip was a detective stationed :it Grevmuuth. On Jiiiip “tli. interviewed flip moused nt Omilii. Questioned him and wrote down tlio replies in the form of ;i stiitement. Bend it over end nei-used snid it w;-s correct. Tovited him to siirn it mid he refused to do so mid refused to give any reason for not doing so (statement nrodueed and read!. Subsequently arrested aroused. In liis lg-longings found the exhibit “J.” a letter in the accused's handwriting addressed to “Ben.” and giving a warning to "tle earefill. Asked who the lidtor was addressed to and accused refused to answer. Said it wa,s not to Biddulph. Benjamin William Biddulph deposed he knew nothing of Stephens’ rohherv. Had nothing to do with if. Knew the accused. He went out with witness in a butcher's cart several times. Never took anything out on the Rimu .rend and planted it. If was false for anyone f.) sav lii>- had done so. and had not 'seen the stuff produced before. This was the ease for the Crown. Mr TTiimian stated lie did not intend to call evidence. The Court adjourned at 12.“ o p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m. AFTERNOON SITTING. Mr Bark addressed the jtirv stating that the accused had acknowledged to Sorgt. King that lie and Biddulph had planted the articles. He had also ack-

nowledged this to Detective Young. The fact that one or more had anything to do with the robbery, did not relieve the accused from his liability. He Mould ask the jury to consider carefully the Match with the name engraved on it that had been positively identified hv Stephens.

Mr Hannan said the evidence was so meagre against the accused that they Mould have no difficulty in connection with the breaking and entering charge. In regard to the theft there was no direct evidence at all. In regard to the third charge of receiving there was only the evidence of the finding ol the articles. In regard to the evidence of Duncan who gave a watch to Mrs Herbert, he thought that his Honour Mould direct that this Match was not identified hv Stephens. On the same evidence as was given that day they had charged one, Nash, with the offence and Ik was found guilty, and now they Mere bringing the same evidence against the aeettsed. The Crown had not brought even enough evidence to cast a suspicion against him. Mis Honour in summing up said there was not evidence to convict on the first indictment. Their duty Mas to consider whether the accused should he convicted on the second and third (■omits or on either of them. It was the duty of the Crown to satisfv them of the guilt of the accused. If the Crown has established their ease then they should bring in a verdict of guilty. ]t was no answer or excuse for the accused if other persons had been connected with the goods. If a person is found in possession of (roods, a recent, time alter they were stolen, then the jury could either find one of theft or of receiving with guilty knowledge. Mr Stephens quite fianklv stated that lie was not able to Identify the wristlet Match, hut that he had articles like it. This did not apply to the watch with the engraving on its face. 'lbis Mas positively identified hv Stephens, as part of the property that was taken nway. This watch Mas found in the slump on the Bimu road. The step Mas t;i decide whether or not he did receive the Match. Tliev had the

statement by tin- aeeit-ed and this stale* had net been challenged by the accused. There Mas no evidence that the 01 isouer ever handled lie* watch Mitli ilic engraving on it. hut the ( rewn held thTit he had const met ive possession. To bring in a verdict ol guilty they must accept- that he had possession of tin- goods. There was the letter written by the accused which contained some extraordinary statements. The ease Mas at any rate on the I ,'rder line. The Jury retinal at 2.-In p.m. and returned at 2..V> p.m with a verdict ol “not guiltv.” The prisoner Mas then discharged and the Jury relieved o| further attendance. CASE OX AITEAI-. RADOMSKI v. IIASEI.EK. Mr Murdoch lor appellant. Mr l’ilkinglon for respondent. An anneal front Hie decision of Mr Vf. Meldrum ,S.M. .Mr l’ilkington first rai-ed an oojee|inn that the appeal had not been lodged within the proper time, hut alter argument this u'as dismissed. Mr Murdoch in opening' stated that In.th himself and counsel for the respondent Mould he laboring under extreme difficulties owing to the' Uleagie notes of the presiding liiagi-trate whi -> made it extremely dillieult to nut the position eh'.'iijv helore the (utii’l. There Mas sum" discussion h.'tween Counsel and Ills Honour, and ullimate|v it was decided that Counsel cooler as to the evidence omitted from the Magistrate's notes, and to then submit a memorandum to the Court. '! he appeal was then oidered to stand uvr accordingly. This concluded the sitting and 'h" ( 1 mil rose.