SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 5 March 1931, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

GRE YMOITTH, March 5. 'The Supreme Court sitting was continued yesterday. ALLEGED THEFT. “Not guilty,” was the plea- entered by Lionel George Hood, and John Joseph Morris to charges of breaking and entering, theft, and receiving, a quantity of jewellery from the shop of J. Tennant, jeweller, of Greymouth, on October 18, 1930. Mr F. A. Kitch. ingliam, Crown Prosecutor, conductor the case for the Crown, both accused being represented by Mr W. P. McCarthy. After hearing evidence for the Crown, the defence elected not to call evidence and counsel addressed the jury. His Honour Justice Kennedy in summing up, explained the charges brought against accused, and directed the jury as to their duty He briefly reviewed the evidence of witnesses for the Crown, dealing first with the evidence against Hood, then against Morris. If Ruane’s statement was true Hood had bought the bangle for his intended bride, whereas lie told Detective Murch that lie had obtained it from a- man, who wanted him to sell it. In a later statement to the detective, Hood stated that lie would not deny that what Ruane said was true. His Honor suggested to th e jury to Consider whether there was satisfactory evidence as to whether accused did break and enter. If they .accepted the view that there was not, then they should carefully consider the charge* of receiving the goods knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained. In reference to Morris, His Honor stated that that accused was not found in the vicinity of Tcnnent’s shoo following the theft. Evidence of being in possession, was reviewed by His Honor, who pointed out that articles shown hv Morris to Slaven corresponded with certain of the articles .stolen from Tennant’s. Was there any reason to doubt the evidence of Slaven? McLaughlin also identified Morris as being the person who offered to sell a pendant for 10s. If the evidence was accepted, they had a fireman, shortly after the burglary, offering jewellery in the streer at ridiculously low prices. H!s Honor referred to the evidence of the other witnesses, and finally instructed the jury to return a verdict according to the evidence. The jury retired at 11.38 a.m.. and returned at 2.15 p.m.. finding both accused guilty of receiving stolen goods. Thev were remanded for sentence.

ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION. Frank Brace was charged that, on February 6, and on divers dates between February 6 and December 22, 1930, at Dunollie, being a classified officer in the service of the New Zealand Government, he committed theft of sums of money totalling £433 15s 2d, monies of the said New Zealand Government. A plea of not guilty was entered by accused. The case for the Crown was conducted by Mr F. A. Kitchingham, accused being represented by Mr J. W Hannan.

The Crown Prosecutor outlined the facts leading up to the case, before proceeding to call evidence. The system adopted to cover the defalcations was known as the “outward holding over” system. Accused had the right to operate the Imprest Account at Gre/mouth, and was responsible for tlie money, which ran into a good many thousand pounds each month. On the last day of each month accused was required to render a return to the head office, and the monies drawn out during the month, were refunded to him. He personally operated the account, and prepared the returns. Accused, it was suggested, would enter amongst .his latest return, certain amounts as being paid out, which were not in fact paid, the cheque for such payment to be made, being not drawn. Then on the first day of the next month, lie would draw the cheque, actually paying the money out, and in this way he kept going until the auditor came on the scene. Specific instances which occurred at the end of November in respect to two amounts to be paid to the firms of Ogilvie and Co., and Stratford Blair and Co., were referred ( to by counsel. These items appeared in the cash hook as having been paid on the last day of November, hut the cheque butts were dated December 1. If examined at the end of November, the books would have disclosed the shortage of £237, the amount of the two cheques. When the auditor asked accused to balance his books, he ohvious. Iv could not, so adopted this course. Evidence was then led on these lines for the Crown.

The jury retired at 5.5 p.m., and returned at 5.25 p.m. with a verdict of guilty. PLEA FOR LENIENCY. The foreman of the jury said it was the unanimous desire of the iurv most respectfully and earnestly to put forth to His Honour a plea for leniency in view of the previous good conduct of the accused, and also in vjew of his ill health, and of the fact that accused had made restitution of the money. His Honour intimated that when he came to sentence the accused he would give the greatest consideration to the facts ns set out by the jury. TX DIVORCE. Myrtle Rore v. William Alfred Cyril Rose, suit for divorce. The case was not defended. His Honour granted a decree nisi, to Ive made absolute after three months. An order was made for respondent to pay costs on the Court scale.

SUPREME COURT SENTENCES. GREYMOUTH, .March 5. At the Supreme Court sentences were as follows: —Lionel Geo Hood and John Joseph Morris, receiving stolen jewellery, each twelve months hard labour. Barney Yincent Reardon, breaking and entering, nine months reformative. Davis George McGifford, breaking and entering, two years probation.