BLAKETOWN ROBBERY

Hokitika Guardian, 26 July 1932, Page 4

BLAKETOWN ROBBERY

MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CHARGES GREYMOUTH, Jully 2G. At Greymonth Magistrates Court yesterday, Thomas Hill, labourer a native of Scotland, aged 24, married; and Gus- - rLc-mas Adoiphus \Viiajfo, ia native of New Zealand, aged 24, single, both of Gieym-outh were charged ’chat on June 27, 1932, at Blaketown drey did break and enter the dwelling . aouse of Hanna Bechman, and steal /herein, one silk ba~, and £l247iff jank notes, the property of the; said; Manna Bechman. - - . • The accu .ed were represented ;by Mr, T. F. Bosnan. Detec'cive-Sergeaafc l Holmes conducted the prosecution* •; Pleas of nc-t guilty were entered ,to the charge. \ .. ■ , '• After hearing lengthy evidence ’the Magistrate said the first .point y -was; as to whether the. Court could admit: evidence with, regard to other .crimes,, committed in Greymouth in. recent - times, and whether evidence as to chisel malrks, , similar to ‘chose, found at Mrs Etechman’s- house, could ,now -j be usedlt..was proposed to prove .-! that the defendants were seen in the ■ vicinity of other crimes v somewhere about the .time that .those crimes Were , sfod to have beelri Committed. In/oth* er worda the prosecution wished .. proceed with'evidence implicating, the' two • accused, in a case were the evi* .*• denes against them was not eo strong’:as it was in the.,present . case, 4f\ there was no prima facie case/ made v out in connection .with the|» . present iicharge, it did not seem .to him that it could bo of any/assistance in trying to melee a prima faeio of it, to produce;. evidence of the other chisel . marks, ■; oven though the accused were seen in . the vicinity at. the time. . It. would only mean bringing a,'certain colour of suspicion'. He did /not think in the/, present case that .tjiis. could be permitted; All thaT could be, proved was that similar,, marbs., were piade -on . the door to thqt pf the chisel found at { the residence of one of ,the ’ accused. Even then it would not go. before a jury. Experts called . cou.d swqar themarks were made,by the chisCl found. They said it could have been done by the chisel or one' like it.' . That really was the only evidence on -which the present charge was founded. The particular./chisel found, in.- tbe.V iyorkshen . at the lionie of one of the accused/’ was not. proved - beyond reasonable.. doubt to have been the one"used.-. There. ‘. was suspicion, but the::, . expense;/' of •••• sending a case to a, .jury had. to be. considered. The question he bad to consider. was whether a' jury,• would -be . likely, to bring in ; « , verdict df guil'cy : .i ‘There, was.. a, . cost to ,be considered, and he required to be almost satisfied, / in sending a case to ,a , / jury, • thaV they would convict, If he found that, it was unlikely that,a jury wpnld^ ~c6n*-A vlct, it was his .duty to dismiss tho charge, The polio* -h»d failed to *■• tablish a strong enough case to go; to, a jury, paving fallen ahert of connect* ing the two accused w.th the breaking into the house. There Was too much room left for a defence, and it would only be useless expense, to send the case on to a jury. The charge was/ therefore dismissed. /;• ;/;%