HOSTILE WITNESS

Hokitika Guardian, 3 November 1931, Page 8

HOSTILE WITNESS

“WENT BACK ON STATEMENT”

PROSECUTION COLLAPSES BREAKING AND ENTERING CHARGES AUCKLAND, Oct. 29. A Crown witnes s who had to be treated as hostile in a criminal trial at the Supreme Court to-day caused the collapse of the prosecution, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty without leaving the box. . The trial was that of James Norman Richards, aged -22, labourer (Mr King), who was chargLd before MiJustice Herdman on four counts of breaking and entering. The principal witness for the prosecution was Alan James McQuinn, aged, 17, who .had been charged jointly with Richards and pleaded guilty on the opening day of the session. He was sentenced to a term in the Borstal Institute.

Richards wa s charged to-day with the theft of cigarettes from the warehouse of Wittome, Stevenson, Ltd., on August 6th; stealing a car from the garage of Leonard John . Bishop, Day Street, on August 6th; stealing kerosene and benzine from Hutchinson’s garage, Mount Eden, on August Bth; and stealing a car valued at £595 from the premises of 'Thomas Arthur Taylor, Swanson Street, on Auust sth. ; Mr V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, said Richards was accused of being connected with a formidable list of offences. A number of motor cars had been stolen in Auckland, and one hoy had already pleaded guilty. Evidence that the, various premises had been broken into and that the property mentioned in the charges Had been stolen wa s given before McQuinlan was called as witness. THOUGHT HE HAD INFORMED Questioned about a statement he had made to the police, witness said it was .false, and he had only made it because lie thought. Richards had “squealed” on him. -, His Honor said that the only course . would be for the Crown to treat the witness as hostile. To Mr Meredith, witness stated that he was by himself in all except one of • the incidents which gave rise to the charges” •. Mr Meredith: How many cars did you take altogether? Witness: I think there were five or six. '“ln'how many of these -thefts was Richards involved ?—Only one. Ever thing yoii said in your statement was a lie?—Yes. Did von see Richards' before the police interviewed him?—No. Do you remember taking a c"r from a warehouse iti Swanson street?—YesWho was with you?—l was on my own. Where did you go?—For a ride. By yourself?—Yes. Witness maintained, in reply to further questions, that he was by himself on every occasion except when he broke into Hutchinson’s garage. Richards was with him then, but did not know witness had stolen the car he was driving. Witness led Richards to believe he worked there, and that the car belonged to his uncle. Richards did not help him to pick the lock. T T e had fabricated that statement to the police. ■ “THIS CASE IS HOPELESS.” His Honour said there did not appear. to be any use in pursuing the matter further, and added: “This case i s hopeless.” . Mr Meredith: There is no other evidence against the accused. His Honor: The only evidence against this man would have been the testimony of an accomplice. The Crown is unfortunately not in a position to give evidence of any kind except that of a lad who is admittedly a criminal, and has gone back on a statement he made to the police. Tn the circumstances, his Honor directed the jury that they should return a verdict of not guilty. This they did. Owing to the fact that the Crown also had to rely on evidence of an accomplice in-a charge of attempted breaking and entering,, . which was brought against the accused this afternoon, the Crown prosecutor asked leave to apply to the Attorney-General for permission to abandon the prosecution. The accused, it was staff'd, was serving a term of imprisonment imno«ed in the Lower Court.