IS HE A " FENCE ?"

NZ Truth, Issue 58, 28 July 1906, Page 8

IS HE A " FENCE ?"

AN "OLD CLO" IN TROUBLE.

John Thomas O'Neill Up Against it Good and Hard.

Did John Thomas Take Down John William?

In April, 1905, the residence of Stephen Penfold, in Thompson-street, was robbed by an individual named John William Lucas, who has confessed to the robbery of jewellery valued at £8. and for his self-con-fessed crime was, at the Magistrate's Court, yesterdav (Friday) week committed for sentence to the .Supreme Court. Lucas, however, will not go to the Supreme Court alone, as with him; or. rather after him, will be dragged John - Thomas O'Neill, a second-hand dealer of Taranaki-street, against whom has been preferred a charge more serious in the eye of the Law than stealing, viz., that OF RECEIVING PROPERTY which he knew at the' time he received it, alleged to be during the month of May, 1905, fo have been stolen. More serious too is another aspect of the case ; O'Neill was chief witness against Lucas, whose con-, fession of guilt made O'Neill's position more precarious. After leaving the court, having given evidence calculated to damn the thief, O'Neill was crathered in .by the detectives much, of course, to his surprise, and no sooner had Lucas left the dock, than in went O'Neill, and the evidence which had previously been tendered a-' gainst Lucas was used, supplemented by that given by Lucas, to have thcdealer sent for trial, on the following Monday, to the Supreme Court. A strong case, one needing much explan- 1 ation, was made out. against the alleged receiver. Lucas' evidence, given on the day O'Neill was arrested :is interesting. In May of 1905 'he was having a drink in the Cambridge, Hotel, where he met O'Neill. Ascertaining that he was a dealer, Lucas entered into treaty for the sale of Penfold's jewellery. He seems to. have made no attempt to hide the fact that he had come by the jewellery dishonestly, and' that fact was not discounted by the dealer who'bargained for the articles. The pair then proceeded to ' ■ •■ • » | .THE THIEF'S HOME •' ,: where they were still bargaining ; : when Lucas ? wife came on : the • scene . and interrupted; however, O'Neill agreed to. purchase for £2. and paid over 4s on account and Lucas was enjoined to co the next day to O'Neill's shop to receive the_balance of the lnoiiey. WKen Tie did so, TiOwever-, .O'Neill, who then had the jewellery,' refused ,to,pav over the moneyi due, and told iiuca^htft he was a fool. ' The'l'O'bbery^- -^oxifse, was reported to the poll' ***& s ' s cus " tomary, "stop r/ contain description Articles, were forwarde/ and second-hand /. - " Uhese notices was^ "»&" tective Kp/ ■ ' ' at a turn - ' "* alleged d? promised stolen/ • he wff ' ' Ihe 1/ was/ whej . mci </

Wilton took the more decisive step, however, of making known the trouble tq Detective Kemp. O'Neill was nrevailed upon to make ai statement. In it ;; he adhered to the Macaulay story. „H e furthe,r.' declared that he •had pjjiiai/^T's ; 6d .for the.^SS wor^li, which is 235. M ihore than vLiucas/ .otherwise Maciaulaj. says he received. f Luqas^^is^ibry -V i&- ith'at •: he" sold the • jewellbry in May. In March the Perifolji residence had not been robbed. When Q'Neill was suddenly snared on the Friday, the detectives straight away proceeded with their case aprainst him. He did not say a word till the conclusion of Lucas' story, when it apparently dawned on him kjbat he was in the soup, or a stew, •'s some other sort of a mess, and, 'ikoned that it would be advisable the assistance of a lawyer. of this Dr. McArthur, Ihe case till last '<• which day Mr P. J. \ared '^^J) CLO." of \ put in tlie box was oidercd irved what de 1 Vnmiticd to j V^uprenie jrobable >„ill be