SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 4 March 1931, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

THEFT CHARGE. GBEYROUTH. March 4. -it the Supreme Court yesterday, charged with breaking ansd entering, and theft at Greymouth, on October 25, of three suitcases, two

gents’ suits, one overcoat, sixteen boxes of liandereliiefs, six men’s shirts, eighteen pairs of men's hose, two cushion covers, t wo table runners, and two supper cloths, the property of Ross and Glendining, Barney Vincent Reardon, and David George MeCifTord, two young moil, pleaded not guilty.

i His Honor ,rossinp; the jury, said if if was found in fact that, the accused stole (lie articles, tho jury would l find a verdict of guilty. It was tiio duty of a jury to acquit the innocent and equally to convict the guilty. The 1 duty of a jury was not only to he discharged towards a prisoner, but also to the country. Counsel for the defence had stated there was no direct evidence against the accused. 'When an offence was committed, it was not done with the eyes of fcllowmen upon the offenders. If direct evidence were the only standard, then, unless some persons saw the burglar enter the building to commit a burglary, a jury could only acquit any person so charged. The morals of the community must rise or fall as the juries carried out their responsible duties. The witness Laing lord stated that the premises were entered and goods stolen which corresponded with those* produced in court. Tlfe witness Fogarty said he was given a suitcase identical with one in court. It was only ‘24 to ;}() hours after the building had been entere that the accused offered fo sell goods to the witness Ilislop. it had been observed also by Hislop that a remark was made that the goods had ecu "lifted” in Christchurch. When the accused Reardon was arrested at Christchurch, he was wearing the overcoat stated by tin* witness Laing to be a special sample order for a special customer. The accused were j apparently in possession of goods re- i moved from Ross and Glendinning’s. • What was a man’s usual way of going I through a town ? One of the accused was under the name of Smith and tin; itlier Forrest. ihe tag on the suitcase in the possession of Reardon bore the name Rogers. If the men were more salesmen passing through the j country, how came it that they adopt- | ed a device suggesting they had something to hide, by using false names ? AlcGitlord’s statement on October >4O admitted that both of the accused were in the warehouse. If the two broke into premises, they were noth responsible for the crime, and if only one man broke in. while the other man lid not break the door, the other man was still a party to the crime. fn that, case both were guilty and implicated in the offence. What did the statement of .MeOifford mean ? Could there be any doubt that it was an explicit confession that be broke and entered the building? If that statement was adopted, it was the duty of the jury to find a verdict of guilty. The i further statement of McGifford giving the right names and further admitting ui 11. was an explicit admission of guilt on bis part. This statement, however. was evidence against .McGifford mly and should not be used against Reardon. A further letter was ,vit ;o j Detective Finlay by .McGifford asking him to come and see the accused and inter, in a written statement, .McGifford pleaded guilty to the offence, askin gto he speedily dealt with. AiHiougli .McGifford had himself pleaded giiiiiy. in his statements, the jury was nvil.J t ueoiisider the ease. If .McGifford was found guilty of breaking entering and theft, the jury wtndd not need to proceed to decide the charge of receiving, as it was an alternative one. Reardon was in company with .MeGifford and they left Greymouth for Westport together and were still together when Ilislop was inviteed to see the goods in their room at Westport. Concerning the fact that Hislop said the accused had stated that the goods bad been "lifted” in Christ- ; church, the word "lifted” had an ordinary Knglish meaning, hut witli men 1 of the world it meant stolen. Further evidence that Reardon had stolen

goods in his possession wits given 7>y Detective Fiiilny. who found the goods in thc> possession of the accused in Christchurch. Reardon had said that they paid about CIO each for the goods Reardon stated in a letter to Detective Finlay: “Seeing as MeGiflord has pleaded guilty, there is nothing else for me to do hut to do the same. You can carry on with the case as soon as you like.” This statement would not surely he made hy accused if he were really innocent. Reardon then met an unknown man in Hokitika and after a conversation, the accused buys goods at a figure he cannot say, hut which is between £lB and £2O. If a genuine transaction had taken place it might be asked, was any receipt given? Was it the old “story of a man in the street,” or a genuine occurrence? Would an innocent man say he would “give it a buck” as Reardon had stated t otlie detective? If th— fury were satisfied that the accused Reardon was in possession of the goods, but were not reasonably certain how he had received them, it was for the jury to say whether the evidence was suffi- ' cient or not, to prove that he had either gained the goods hy breaking, entering and theft, or by receiving. He would point this out as MoGifford’s evidence was not admissable as against Reardon. The jury retired at 3.7 p.rn. and returned at 4.50 pun. with a verdict of

guilty on the charges of breaking, cntcmitr and theft. 'I lie prisoners wort' remanded tor sentence till 9.,‘10 a.in. on Thursday morning. ANOTHER THEFT CASE. Lionel George Hood and John .Joseph .Morns were charged with breaking entering, and steading from the premises of John Torment, jeweller. Mawhera Quay, Greymoutlg on October ISth, 1900, jewellery valued at L'ffd. Tile accused, wlio were represented by Mr W. P. McCarthy, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The hearing had not concluded when the Court rose last evening