NOT GUILTY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 17 July 1929, Page 9

NOT GUILTY

SEQUEL TO A SORDID CASE

YOUNG WOMAN ACQUITTED ON THEFT CHARGE Yesterday afternoon the Supreme Court was occupied with ihe I rial of Daphne llcrmanscn, involving the alleged theft of :i sum of money. 'The charges were (1) Thai she did receive the sum of JJ7 I'roni Eric Cavuniigli, knowing il to have been heforc then stolen, and (2) .that, having become aware that the sum of £7 then in her possession had been before then stolen, fraudulently converted the same to her own x and thereby stole the same. Mr C. 11. Fell appeared for the Crown and Mr J. It. Ken- for the. licensed. Before the. jurors were called upon Mr Kerr raised a preliminary objection lo the second count on the grounds that the theft was complete from the owinr of the money (a Chinese) and that il could not again be stolen unless (hst restored to its owner.

Mr Fell replied lo the legal poi.it. His Honour said be was inclined to agree, with Mr Kerr, but he considered the indictment good as covering a charge cf theft from the thief (Cavanagli). His Honour had taken the charge as tnelt from the thief when he directed the Grand Jury. . . The following jury was empanelled. C C. Campbell, Ceo. Page, P. A. Jidmonds, A. K. Sloan, A. J. Cromm. J. \ Scott, 0. A. Cotton, J'. Lovcudgc, M. Karslon, W. W. Lock, W. L. A. Forster, C. N. M. Anderson. The accused pleaded not guilty. It. will be remembered from 'he ~e-count count recently published in "The iVu'. of the preliminary proceedings aga.nsi the accused, Cavanagli and otlwffl at IMS Magistrate's Court, that the charges arose out of a visit lo a Chinese fu.iterer's shop by the accused, anotmr wo man, Cavanagli and two other men. During the visit a sum of mon iy was taken from the trousers of --.-e o )C Chinese present, Seven pounds ot lie money was later taken to the accused s room' by Cavanagli and hidd m m u small package in tier room. Later sue put the package containing the money in an attache case, which she left at a nearby store, saying that she would call for it later. The first witness called was J. MHarding, clerk of the Magistrates Court, who produced the Court Record Book to show tnat the money had been stolen. , Mr Kerr objected to the evidence anil quoted reasons in support.. His Honour said he would allow the evidence but would note Mr Kerr's objection. Eric Cavanagli, a labourer at present undergoing sentence in Wellington, was called by the Crown Prosecutor. Witness described the visit to Ihe back room of the Chinese shop in Bridge street on the night of 19th Juno. There were present the accused, a fiirl known as Miss Rainbow, Symons, Clark and two Chinese, Charlie Chick and Jack. Witness said that after the girls had gone lie received £7 from Symons. Before they went Charlie.. Chick began complaining about the money having been stolen from him. Witness told the girls to go home when the row started. Witness' saw the accused just before dinner time the. next day and told hw." the two boys (Symons and Clark) had been arrested. He supposed he told her the reason. Witness then went into the accused's room and hid ■ a cigarette packet containing the £7. The accused saw him put the packet /away. Later in the day witness went to the accused s room with the police, but the money was. not where he had put it. Witness saw the accused after some.' time had elapsed and asked her where the package was She said she had removed it, but didn't say where 10. The accused then went with one. of the constables to a S Questioned by counsel for the accused witness said the first the accused could have known about any money being stolen was when the Chinese began to make a fuss. The Chinese was bard to understand and witness thought the accused was under the influence of liquor and not in a fit slate to take much notice of what was said. About the date of this occurrence witness was on friendly terms with the accused, and would "not have minded her slutting any of his things. Up to the time accused left the Cliineso shop she had not received any money from the Chinese. The CWown Prosecutor called Constable Lines, who gave evidence that be went id the, accused's room with the previous witness (Cavanagli), who looked unsuccessfully for the. £7. The accused was later interviewed by witness and Constable Austin. Accused took the constables to a shop and got the money for them out of an attache case she said she had left there. Constable Austin corroborated what the previous witness had said and read a statement made by accused. According to Ibis statement Cavanagli took accused home about 1 o'clock ill the morning and told her he and his companions had taken the money. After dealing with Cavanagh's hiding a package in accused's room the statement went "on to say that the next day Cavanagli told her of Clark and Symons being arrested. She became frightened, put the money in her purse and left it in her attache case at the store.

This concluded the case for the prosecution. Addressing the jury Mr Kerr said he proposed tto bring evidence to show that the accused knew nothing about the theft when it was committed. Accused then entered the witness box: She. staled that when .she went .to the Chinese men's shop she drank a large glass of wine. She did not know any crime had heen committed. When Cavanagh came to her room the next day accused Icncw she was hiding something but did not know what it was. When accused look the money across to the store she knew there was something wrong about it. When she made (lie statement to the police she was upset and did not know what sin? was saying. It was because the money was hidden thai she thought there must lie something wrong about it Questioned by the Crown Prosecutor accused said she was present at Ilia Chinese shop when the "rumpus" over the money began, Iml she could not, understand what the Chinese were talking about. Answering a question from Ilis Honour accused said that when Cavanagh told her that Clark and Symons were in trouble she did not know it was about, the Chinese man's money. To Mr Fell, witness said thai al'ler Cavanagh had gone she found that. Iho packet he had hidden contained money. She thought it, must have been money stolen from the Chinese. Mr Kerr, addressing the jury, suggested that the accused was the dupe of Cavanagh. who took her to the Chinese shop so Hint he and his companions could carry out what was in (he back of their minds. The accused was not aware of and did not lake part in the theft. When Clark and Symons were arrested Cavanagh wanted to gel rid of tin ney. He had no scruple againstusing the girl still further as a dupe iitul so bid it in her room. In taking

the money across to the store accused was not attempting to appropriate it to her own use, but merely trying to get it out of the house. Counsel* asked t hejury to give the accused credit for her frankness when questioned by the l policeMr Kerr said that the accused could not be convicted on both counts. His Honour said he had not actually ruled that, but ho was inclined to agree with Mr Kerr. The Crown Prosecutor's to the l jury briefly traversed the. evidence for the prosecution. On Cavanagh's evidence alone no other verdict hut not guilty could have been returned. However, the- accused's own evidence l must be considered as well. Counsel submilted that the story told by the accused in the box was not a probable story. but that what she said in her statement to the police was much more likely to be correct. She must have known when, Cavanagh hid the money in her room that it was the proceeds of the robbery from the Chinese. His Honour, summing up, pointed out that the Crown had admitted the two charges were intended lo be alternative and not cumulative. To prove the charge of receiving, the Crown must prove (1) that the money was stolen, (2) that the accused received it, and (3) that the accused knew the money was stolon. His Honour dealt with the evidence in relation to the three necessary points. The third point was the only one that presented any difficulty. ]f what she said to the police was l true then there was the evidence to showthat site knew the money was sto'eri when she received it. Regarding the second count His Honour confessed he could not see so i.~irri evidence in support of that charge. She was not guilty of theft unless l when she took that money to the. store her motive was to convert it to her own use. It might quite possibly have been sheer fright. His Honour suggested that as there were so many difficulties on the second count the accused should be found not guilty on that straight away I that the jury should then consider the first count. After a short retirement (lie jury brought in a verdict of uol guilty on both charges.