SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 7 March 1930, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

SITTING AT HOKITIKA

FRIDAY, MARCH 7th

(Before His Honor, Mr Justice

Adams)

The following Grand Jury was empanelled:—J. H. Wilson, jl. Ward, \Y. 11. Slum non, G. It Perry, F. McGregor, F. Oliver, T. Moore, It. \\ 1 11 1oy. M. K. Sweney, \Y. Stopforth, D. Stevenson, J. X. Robinson, J. Peake, Preston, \V E. Perry, M. C. Newman. R. Lynn. Mr JB. Ward was ciioseu foreman.

ms Honor addressed the Gland Jury. Ho said there were three cases to come before them, for considerauon. One charged Edney Median with breaking, entering and theft from the house of Arthur Yarrall, and stealing a jewel box. The second charge is against the same young man of having stolen a bank note for £5. There was an eiemeiit in this case that they would have to consider. The owner had three notes and disposed of two, and he did not know the actual number of the last remaining note. His Honor proceeded to refer to the evidence to he given for the prosecution. One of the numbered notes was paid into a bank by the accused into his mother’s account. Their duty was to consider the evidence put before them and decide if there were sufficient evidence to place before a common jury for trial. The remaining charge was against Frederick Boakes, and was of attempted arson. His Honor referred to the evidence, stating there seemed to be no evidence that the man had been in the house from the time he had left it, till the fire was discovered. He was not making any suggestion as to the course they should take. They would retire and consider the charges. The Grand Jury retired at 10.50 a.m. The Common Jury were called and 'sworn in. Cecil Preston and Thomas Stickles were excused from attendance being members of tlm Fire Brigade. GRAND JURY. The Grand Judy returned at 11.30 a.m. with a true bill against Edney Hal com be Heenan, alleged theft of £5. IN BANKRUPTCY. Harry John Dunn, a bankrupt, application for discharge. Air Murdoch for applicant. Mr Joyce for Mr XV. Jeffries, appeared to object to application. The bankrupt. Harry John Dunn, gave evidence as to his bankruptcy. He had not received any notice of objection to his application.

To Mr Joyce: He had given all the explanations he could to his creditors. He could not pay anything to Mr Jeffries. He was forced to go bankrupt . To Mr Murdoch: After the meeting of creditors they decided to give him back the house he was living in. He had no property except what fiis creditors gave him back. William Jeffries gave evidence that he was an auctioneer. He knew bankrupt wlio dealt with him. It was not till near the end of his dealings that he found his position was so bad. He had been purchasing goods for a period of years. He made one cash payment £7 10s when he purchased a separator. He made repeated promises to pay. The only pavment in pigs was a deal at the Arahura yards. The amount due was £53 10s. Credit was given on statements by bankrupt that he would sell his pigs through witness to pay for the account. That was not done.

Mr Joyce objected to the granting of discharge on the grounds of liis having promised to pay and so obtained further credit. His Honor said the Assignee’s report tended to show the hopeless task taken up by the bankrupt. It appeared that he endeavoured to do the impossible. Mr Murdoch said there could be no question that the man worked ant worked well, but he had taken up an impossible task. 11 is Honor said the bankrupt had undoubtedly had very great difficulty in taking up what was a very poor farm. Ho did not propose to grant the discharge at the present time. The discharge would be suspended for twelve months. ALLEGED THEFT.

Ednev Haleoiube Heenan was charged with theft of a purse containing £5, the property of Arthur Robert Thompson. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Joyce appeared for the accused and Mr Park for the Crown. 'l'he following jury were empanel-led:—-William Thomson, A. Parkhill, Ronald Ross, William Thomas Barrowman, Robert John Stuart, William Agnew, Conrad H. Berendt, John Thomas Brown. Henry A. Finch, William Leslie, John Marshall, William Gooch. Mr A. Parkhill was chosen foreman. The Crown ordered the following to stand by •.—■Robert James Stewart. Richard Charles Wells. Georg* Shaw, Norman G. Wilson, William Ziegler. Mr Joyce challenged:—l). P. Stuart. William Houston, Robert Charles Benton. Mr Park outlined the case for the Crown, and led the following evidence :

Arthur Robert Thompson sworn stated ho was a resident of Bi uco Bay. He came to Hokitika in February. 19-29. He had £22 in a purse. He took the numbers of three. £o notes. He had a £5 cheque, ill note and some silver. He arrived on the Tuesday Cas'liod one tOi note at Newmans that night, and one at Perry’s, dentist, a few days latei. On the following Sunday, 17tli. about J p.ni. went to the baths. Undressed

in tlie dressing room, hung his clothes on the wall and went to the water. Was undressed about twenty minutes. On return to the dressing

room found his pocket was opened. Had left a cheque, L's note, a 10s note, some silver and two keys in a leather purse in his trousers pocket. Felt his pocket, and found the purse gone. Dressed and saw the caretaker and made a complaint to him and then went to the police station and made a complaint, there. Constable Dougherty asked him to seaich his clothes. He did so and found the cheque, which had been in the purse with the £5 note, fie gave no authority to take the money out of his pocket. To .Mr Joyce: He had three £5 notes and cashed two. He could not say what the particular number of the third £5 note was. The other two were cashed a few days before the other one was stolen. He did not discover, the £5 cheque till he was at the police station. Partick .Daniel Dougherty sworn said he was a Constable stationed at Hokitika. The last witness came to him on Sunday, 14th February, 1929, and made a complaint. Witness asked him to make a careful search of his clothing. He did so and found a £5 cheque in his pocket. Obtained the numbers of certain notes from Thompson. Notified the banks the following mrning.

To Mr Joyce: He did not notify Mrs Heenon of the numbers.

Thompson recalled: The £5 notes were on the Bank of New Zealand. Samuel Prince Louis Evans sworn stated he was a teller at the Bank of New Zealand on 18th February, 1929, between 12 and 1 p.m. He had received tlxe numbers of three £5 notes. Accused came into the %nk and paid £9 into his mother’s account, It consisted of one £5 note and form single notes. The £5 note corresponded with one of the notes he had been to]d to look out for.

'To Mr Joyce: He did not know anything about the other notes. They were never found. Charles John King sworn stated lie was Sergeant of Police at Hokitika. On Monday, 18th February, 1929, received a complaint of the loss of moneys from the baths at Hokitika, 'file numbers of three £5 notes were given. He notified banks and business people to keep a look out for them. During the afternoon of the same day received a telephone message from the Bank of New Zealand to the effect that one £5 note had turned up at the bank. Saw the £5 note and checked the number. On 21st January, .1933, was in his office. Was questioning the accused about another case. Incidentally asked him what he knew about the baths theft. Ho said he might as well tell the truth about it, “I did it.” He said he was prepared to make a statement. He said yes and he took the statement produced. The statement said he was in the baths early in 1929. He was in the water about half an hour. He went to the dressing .room and dressed. When he dressed he took a purse from a trousers pocket. It contained a£s note and a cheque. He put the cheque back as he was frightened. He did not know why he stole the money. He took the money home and put the note in his mother’s safe and took out another, and being frightened burnt it. The statement was made voluntarily. He was not under arrest at the time. To Mr Joyce: The statement was in witness’ language. To Mr Park: Witness was not enquiring into the baths theft at that time. It was absolutely a voluntary delivery. Warren James K. Andrewes sworn said he was caretaker of the Hokitika baths. He remembered Thompson coming to witness on a Sunday afternoon and going in for a swim. Accused was there that afternoon. Thompson made a complaint to witness. The accused went away and came back again that afternoon. To Mr Joyce: There were 20 or 30 'n the baths at time. This was tb« ease for the Crown. Jr Joyce did not call evidence. Mr Park addressed the jury. The hole case rested on the confession made by the accused. The jury had to consider the surroundings of that confession. The £5 note that was cashed in the Bank, was one of the three £5 notes that Thompson had. What would, induce accused to make that confession. It was proved that one of the £5 notes was in the purse in the dressing room when he undressed and was gone when he came back and one of the £5 notes was paid in by the accused himself next day to his mother’s account. The accused said, ‘T did it.” What more did they want?

Mr Joyce, addressing the jury, stated it was their duty to decide if the defendant stole the money. The first matter was the identification of the mote. There was no evidence that this particular note was stolen. He asked them to consider the evidence of the bath attendant. In connection with the confession they must decide if it were a true one. They were asked to belie'-e that the statement was ai voluntary one. He submitted it was nothing of the sort. Tt was a statement made by Sergt. King and put into the accused’s mouth. He submitted that this statement was no confession at all and they must bring in a verdict of acquittal. His Honor said the question of guilt or innocence was mainly to he considered with the statement made. They had to consider the manner of hie statement itself. The charge was made against the accused more than 12 months after the incidents had occured. They were asked very fairly to consider whether the evidence of the wituessses was absoluely right or had wandered from strict accuracy. In the statement there was nothing said to

affect the veracity of the examin officer. The statement was made fi a series of questions to which answer was yes or no. The jury hac consider all the circumstances. Th was no evidence as to the last t Thompson saw the missing note. ' question was for them to consider. r particular note might have reaol any other person without any imp prieity. The jury must, he satisli without (any r,ensviable doubt th accused stole that note, before tl bung in a verdict of guilty. The jury retired at 1.5 p.m.

The Grand Jury returned at 1 p. with a true bill against Ednev H embe Heenan of alleged breaking, < t ring and theft. The jury returned at 2.30 p.m. wi a verdict of not guilty. No bill was returned against Freeh iciv Boakes, for arson.