BREAKING AND ENTERING

Otago Witness, Issue 2894, 25 August 1909, Page 31

BREAKING AND ENTERING

The hearing of the charges again*t Frederick Matthews of breaking and entering at Dunedin was resumed. ** Mr Callan, addiessing the jury, said the only evidence that the ring and chain were ever in the possession of accused, he knowing them to bo stolen, was the evidence of Miss Alice Lee. The jury had to carefully ask this before making up its mind that the charge had been proved: Whether or not there was any reason that it should or should rot beiieve the evidence of Miss Lee. What test could the jury apply? The jury was justified in asking whether the Miss Lee told was a probabi? and likely one — if it had any improbabilities to begin with to arouse suspicion. Was it a probable story? There must have been somstlrnp: .behind the falling, out with accused which Miss Lee did not explain. The whole ' case depended Upon whether Miss Lee had told the truth when she said the jewellery came to her from this man, and if that was (rue there was a third person who saw it handed t;ver; yet the Crown had not seen or heard anything of that man. Ro.ve was on very good terms with Miss Lee, and walked home with her at night, and unless he helped her in a possible difficulty where .was she? The jury had to be satisfied that they were both telling the truth, and

that their story was a probable one and fitted in in all its parts.

His Honor having summed up, the jury retired at half-past 11, and in half an hour returned with the verdict of " Guilty on the third counf" (with receiving stolen property).

Accused gave hi 3 age as 41 years, and said he had been in New Zealand for two years. He came from Australia, and had a bad record there, but he hoped his Honor would not take that into consideration in sentencing him. It v.a3 the first time he had been in the dock in New Zealand. '

Mr Macassey said accused was a native of Melbourne, and a labourer by occupation. He was regarded by the police as a very daring criminal, and had been convicted of a series of offences in Australia. Mr Macassey then detailed the ofienoe3, which consisted of larceny, having no lawful visible mean 3of support, larceny, having housebreaking implements in his possession, having no visible means of support, larceny, honsebreaking and stealing (four years), housebreaking and stealing, housebreaking and stealing, and housebreaking and stealing (seven years). He seemed, Mr Macassey concluded, to have come over here from Australia immediately he was free. His Honor said if prisoner came before the- court again for a future offence he would most c?rtaiDlj' be treated as »an habitual criminal, and be kept in gaol for the rest of his life. His Honor did not want to pass such a sentence- for a moment, but he must recollect prisoner's previous career. The sentence of the court would be ibat prisoner be imprisoned for three years on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent, and kept to hard labour

STABBING' A CONSTABLE. Michael Coleman was indicted with having, about the 2nd July, at Wcodha-ujrh with intent to maim, disfigure, and dis-" able Constable Daubney, wounded him There were other counts of doing actual bodily harm, as9ault so as to cause actual bodily harm, assault, and doing actual bodily harm in resisting arrest. Mr Hankri and Mr Irwin appeared for accused, who pleaded "Not guilty." Mr Macassey said Constable Daubney was stationed at Woodhaugh, and at about a quarter to 7 on the night of the 2nd July, in consequence of a complaint, he went out into the street and spoke to accused. Accased used very obscene language, and said to the constable, "You have a set on me and I have a set on you, and J am going to give it you now." The constable went to arrest accused, and accused struggled, and in the course of the struggle got one hand, in which he had a knife, free, and iunged the knife at the constable's head, striking him on the left side of the fa.cc above the ear. The struggle continued, and accused made a second lunge, and staobed the constable in the neck under the left ear. The constable then rushed accused, knocked him down, and walked over to the other side of the road. Accused got up and walked away, and the constable, who was feeling weak, followed. Daubney called out for hie son, and his son followed accused, caught him, and threw him down. Accused said to the son, "Old Daubney has had a set on me for some time, but I 6ettled him to-night.'' Another constable came along, and accused was talc-en away to the station. At the place on the bridge where accused wa> knocked down by youngDaubney was found a knife stained wifch blood. The constable, who sv&s severely injured, was laid up for about a fortnig-ht, and had suffered considerably from his wounds.

Evidence was givon by Constable Daubney and his son Frederick Daubney, Dr Evans, Robert James Painter, and Sergeant Gilbert.

Mr Irwin said accused would c ay he knew what he was doing. He met Pa.inter and Miss Daubney on this narrow pathway, and when Painter pushed him off the pathway he became annoyed, his annoyance perhaps being increased by the fact that he had been drinking. The pair disappeared inside the gate, and. immediately afterwards Constable Daubney came out and assaulted accused. Accused would tell the jury that at the time he was interfered with by Painter he was in the act of filling his pipe, and would naurally have his knife in his hand. He would also say that when arrested .i freshly-filled pi)'© was in his possession, and that when ho was attacked by Daubney h" had a parcel under his arm, and it was incrvlible that he had done what the constable had stated he had. He would a'linit that fha knife was found by him some time a;jo, ami was in hi« possession. live reason for denying owning the knife was that ha hoard that Constable Daubney was :njarcd, and that he would be blamed for it.

The accused (Michael Colernan) said he was a labourer, residing at Wood end, and had resided there fcr 30 years, except a couple of years spe-nt at Raver-sbaume. He was a married man, with a fa.rn ; ly. He had been arrested for drunkenness, and it was only during- the 'ast few years that he ! had been addicted to drink. On the even- ' ing in question he met a young- maji and j a younjr woman coming towar-de him. lie 1 was filling- his pipe at the time, and tho j 30un.gr woman pushed tho man a-gainst him j and pushr-d him off the footpath. The jnrl ran across the road laughin?, and t,ho young man said something witne-s cou'd j not catch. Witnpss said something as th" tw o 1 were going into Daufcney's gate, but h:> ! did not remember what it was. He had ha.d a bc-or, but knew what he was doing. Witness had not gone much further when ho got a blow on the men from Con?tab'e ', Daubn^y. Witr.o-!? was filling hi= pip'-* • when ho met tho snii a.n<l the man. .and hacl ' the knife in his hand. He also had a pair ; of shoct, wrapped up under his arm. When '. he was struck he turned roun-rl to s->s who | had struck him. 'aw it v. i, tho coiis'aUo, 1 and nteppo<l into (he roa'i, whore hs was knocked down. Whil«-> wimess wa>, down J the constable kicked him so-, eral times. I Witness got up. nr.d tho two exchanged . some blows, v, irno-i u'-ir^ the brow. In | the other h;:nd he imi-i have hail hi; j/.pe and the knife. One of the -hoc>s dropped ( out of the pare.?!, an-d aft-^r he had picked it up he walked awa\. \Viti;e-s <1H noi. remember hitting the constable w.th the knife, and did not intonj to hit him with j it. He hit him froslv v.-ith the parcel, j TJie constable ncvci «-.id anything about ai resting- witness. Witness went to the > bridge, and youmj; Dau'on-iy caufrht him by the arms fronn the back, put his fen- o into his back and pulled him down. Witr.e s asked him who he was, and he rcplird he ' was a detective and tbjfi he arrested him. ' A woman appeared before young Daubney let him up. The woman was similar to Miss Daubncv, but witness could not cay it was her. Witness wont quietly to Daubney'6, was placet! in an express, and taken to the station. They frightened him and

said Daubney was dying, ar.d that was why he denied that the knife was his.

To Mr Macassey : Witnes3 wa-s not satisfied witb the way Constable Daubney had carried out his duties in connection wiih a robbery that was committed on him. (witness). Constable Daubney ha-d never spoken to him about complaints regarding his conduct while drunk

Mr Hanlon said there was the evidence of Daubney and the evidence of accused, and there wa3 no corroboration of what Daubney said had occurred at the time he was alleged to have been stabbed. The point was that Daubney said this man deliberately stabbed him, and en the other hand accused said just as emphatically that ho did not stab Daubney, if he cut him at all with the knife in the scuffle. Thero was no great reason why the jury should place implicit faith in the evidence of the constable any more than it should place implicit faith in the evidence of accused. It was the constable's daughter who had been spoken to, and it was impossible that a man's daughter should be subjected to improper language by 6ome person in the street without the father being annoyed. Daubney intended to arrest Coleman because he had ordered an express to take him to the station. If the jury found accused guilty they ignored the evidence of Dr Evans, which w-ent to show that the blows were 6truck upwards and backwards. Mr Macassey said Dr Evans had not .said the blows were upwards and backwards, but that the wounds were upwards and backwards, which was a very different thing. His Honor summed up, and in doing co said accused was considerably under the influence- of drink, and it was weli known that a man like that was ready for any trouble that came, and was about the last man to give a true account of what took place. It could not be suggested that the others were under the influence of liquor. His Honor then went on to review the evidence at some length, and said if it was pure accident that got rid of the intention.

The jury retired at 3.45, and returned to the court at 4.20 with a verdict of guilty on tho third count. Prisoner gave his age as 59 years, and had nothing to say.

Mr Macassey said there wero two previous convictions for drunkenness. Prisoner's conduct was generally good, but when he got drink he was violent. He was a native of Irelend, and had been here about 30 years.

His Honor (to the prisoner) : If you had owned up instead of coming here and telling a pack cf lies I would nave let you off very easily indeed, seeing you have been in New Zealand co long, and are a hardworking man. But seeing you like to come here to go into the box and tell a parcel of lies you cannot be let off so easily. The sentence of the court is that you bo imprisoned for 12 months and kept to Lard labour.

ARSON. Frederick Charles Laeey, found guilty of setting fire to a dwelling-house in Dundas street, was brought before hie Honor for sentence, and gave his acre as 44 years. Mr Macassey said prisoner was a native of New Zealand, and a labourer by occupation. There was nothing known ag-ainst him except a small conviction for resisting th-e police- in December last.

His Honor : The offence is a very serious one indeed. You are sentenced to four years' imprisonment and to be kept to hard labour.