GUILTY OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3520, 5 August 1926, Page 3

GUILTY OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

t *

YOUNG MAN CONVICTED. At the Supreme Court at Palmerston North on Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury of 12, Hector Mark Perreau, a youth of It), stood indicted on charges of breaking and entering three shops in Levin and also with theft and alternatively, the receiving of articles and money taken from those premises. The charges were that on April 10, 1920, he did break and enter the premises of Cameron Bros, drapers, of Levin, and steal goods valued at £35; on April 24, breaking and entering the tobacconist shop of Clarence Henry Bould, in the same street, and stealing goods valued at £1 3s Gd, and on the same datel, breaking and entering the premises of William M. Clark and Co., Ltd., drapers, of Levin., and stealing goods valued at £3, and money totalling £ls 10s. Charges of theft and receiving, were also entered, making nine counts in all. Accused plaeded not guilty. 1

Mr. F. H. Cooke prosecuted and Mr. Free represented accused. In reviewing the case for the Crown, Mr. Cooke said that in April last, the accused and another youth, A. 11. Chambers, were wbrldng together in Levin, picking fir cones for a Palmerstpn North nursery,, and occupied the same quarters in town. The cone-collecting was not a success! The lads decided to give up the job, and elected to go shopbreaking. Their first venture was staged at 1.30 on the morning of April 1G and on April 24 they packed up and went to Wellington, where they were arrested three days later. Chambers, when charged later in Levin, had pleaded guilty to the offences with which Perreau was now also charged, and was sentenced at Wellington. When questioned, accused had explained his possession of certain articles by stating that he had been given them by his companion as a birthday present, although that day was yet a month off. A large number of three-penny pieces found on him he said he had secured by changing a £1 note to pay tram fares. Evidence was given by George Cameron, of the firm of Cameron Bros., re the entry into his premises and theft of goods and by Clarence Henry Bould, tobacconist, and Wlm. Clark, draper. Detective Thomas gave evidence of arresting accused and Chambers in Wellington. Arthur Henry Chambers in evidence said that on finding there was so little money in cone gathering, they “decided to do something desperate.” Witness suggested that they should break in somewhere .and accused seconded the proposal. They then both broke into Cameron Bros.’ witness using a torch which accused lent him, and they made a selection of the goods, rejurned to their lodgings and sorted out the spoil in the morning. What fitted each in the matter of clothing was taken by him. About a week later they broke into Bould’s and Clark’s on the same night. Perreau came into Bould’s shop about half.an hour after witness had gained entrance through the fanlight. They had several keys, obtained from the tobacconist’s, one of which they found opened Clark’s door. Witness entered by the door, but Perreau af ter getting inside, ran away when he saw a car coming. Witness took some clothing and studs and aboyt, £ls in money. Perreau was asleep when witness returned, but in the morning asked witness “if he had done any good,” also making complaint that he had no money, so witness handed him some. Next they proceeded by the early train to Wellington and put up at the Soldiers’ hostel, and it was there they were arrested. Witness was now in the Borstal Institute at Invercargill. He had had no quarrel with accused; they had always been quite friendly. Each had made a separate statement to the detective. Cross-examined by defending counsel, witness denied that accused had made the first suggestion re-' garding any of the robberies. It was true that he had a collection of keys at . his lodgings in Levin. After the Cameron episode, he and accused portioned out the goods; those lifted from Clarks’ witness took away in his pockets. These thefts were the outcome of a shortage of money and they took the large quantity of clothing from Camerons’ because they did not find any cash there. To His Honour: Witness supposed he small change found on Perreau was part of that which had been shared from Clarks’ cash registers. _ -iif In continuing, witness said that accused on the second day of their stay in Wellington, had gone to visit an aunt and he “knocked around” on his own. With his money he bought, among other things, a mandolin. Counsel, in opening the ease tor the defence, said the weightiest part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution was that certain stolen o-oods were found in his possession, but birfW/the larger portion of the haul was discovered among the belongings of Chambers. The small gifts he had received at various times were not such as to make him suspect his room-mate was a burglar. The money might raise more doubt in the jury’s mind, but the £0 13s 4d found in prisoner s possession at the time of his arrest was accountable for by the fa that on the Saturday . nttci the Bould-Clark entries, prisoner took some H from «• ?.“*! ‘5 Ponton, whither the two youths hud

gone to play in a football match. The manner of accused’s spending his time in Wellington was not such as to point to his having a serious crime on his conscience. He spent it in looking for work and in visiting relatives. The evidence of Chambers mast be treated with suspicion, and various discrepancies and doubts were discernable in it.

Mark Perreau, the father of accused, stated that his son had gone early in the year to get wider experience in the baking trade in Levin. He had never been troublesome and could always have as much money as was good for him. Accused, in the witness-box, said he picked up with Chambers when he bad been in Levin for about a month. -Late on the night of April IG, he saw Chambers twice in the company of others, and on the folliwing morning his companion produced an inkwell, pad and packet of envelopes, which he said had been sent to him. A fortnight’ be fore April 15 he saw a suit, which was among the “exhibits,” in Chambers’ possesion. On the even ing before he left Levin, and on reaching bis own quarters, found Chambers in bed, and a note from him asking witness to wake him up. This be did, Chambers vouchsafing no reason for his request, but starting to read. Witness then fell asleep. Witness had no money when he went to Foxton, but returned with £4. Between that time and when he was arrested on the Tuesday in Wellington, he spent about 30s. including money for train fare and board.

To His Honour, witness said he had tried to enter the Navy about two months before these happenings, and it was while waiting 'to enlist he discovered that his birthday was in May, and not April, as he had previously supposed. He made no inouiry as to the source-of the new clothing Chambers had. When the latter asked witness to put some of his clothing in witness’s suitcase, he had no room in his own bag. Witness alleged he had been threatened, knocked down to the floor and aken by the throat by ,tbe detective, who then took up Chambers, got a statement from him, and later returned to witness. To Crown Counsel, prisoner reiterated that the detective had used violence, but bis statement was later made voluntarily. His family didn’t know lie bad given up baking for cone-collecting. When Chambers handed him the* small change to keep for him, he was suspicious, and asked him if lie had taken it from a till. Chambers replied “yes,” but witness thought he was treating Cm question as a joke. Witness denied that lie had told the detective be had changed a pound for train fares. To J-lis Honour, witness alleged the detective bad assaulted him with his fist, then got him by the throat, but on bis persisting that lie “knew nothing about it,” lie desisted and let him go.

Summing -up, His Honour drew the attention of the jury to the. fact that there were three sets of alternate, charges. It whs quite clear, lie stated, that the three establishments mentioned in the indictment had been broken and entered, -and it was also quite clear that certain of the stolen property and money was found on accused when arrested. If the story told by Chambers was true, then it was clear that accused had been an accomplice in the thefts, but the jury should look further than this to see if there was any corroboration. There was the fact that the two young men had been associated together and living in the same room during the time of the robberies; the fact that they had been found together afterwards in Wellington, and the further fact that some of the stolon property had been found on accused. Those facts the jury were entitled to accept as corroboration. The onus was on accused to show that the stolen property had come into his possession by some other than a dishonest method. Accused had stated that the goods and money had been given him by Chambers, but the latter’s story was that they were the proceeds of a joint Jobbery by the two. If the jury was satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence to show that accused had been a party to the thefts, then it w as for them to consider whether lie had known that the property was stolen when lie had accepted it. “There is a remarkable- piece of evidence by the accused that I must draw your attention to,” proceeded Ilis Honour —“that the detective at Ihe police station struck him with his fist and knocked him down and then caught him by the throat to get a statement from him. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that this is absolutely untrue. Such a thing is impossible with any police officer unless he is drunk or mad.” Probably, continued His Honour, accused had been reading some third degree story of America and had given the jury the benefit of something he had read. Nothing had been said by accused about the knocking down incident when charged in the lower court, and it was also strange that the detective when in the box had not been crossexamined on this point. The jury were entitled to believe this story told by accused, hut His Honour ■felt it was right for him to say that such an incident was impossible in New Zealand. If the jury disbelieved accused on this matter, it would help them in coming to a judgment on the other matters. The jury retired at 1(1.30 o’clockand returned at 12.30 with a verdict of guilty of receiving goods stolen from the shops of Cameron Bros, and W l , M. Clark, Ltd., hut not guilty on the seven other counts,

adding a recommendation to mercy

His Honour intimated that lie would sentence prisoner on Saturday morning. An order was made for the return of all the stolen property and money found on accused when arrested.