A RULE OF EVIDENCE.
STOLEN PROPERTY CASE. The rules of evidence stood by Thomas Patrick Conaghan when he faced Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., last Thursday in the Putaruru Court to answer a charge of having stolen a bag of tools valued at £3 9s from Richard Vosper on November 11, 1927. Accused pleaded not guilty. Richard K. Vosper recalled that he attended a dance in the Putaruru Hall on the night in question, leaving his motor bike by R. T. Smith’s shop. His tool bag was attached and securely fastened. Next morning the tools had vanished. Some time later he borrowed a grease gun which he recognised. The lender said he had purchased it with tools from a person named Conaghan for a few shillings.
Constable Cotter said he interviewed Conaghan, who admitted he sold the tools but said he had found them under a board. “ Dismissed,” remarked Mr. Pater-
The magistrate then went on to explain that the rule of evidence in regard to stolen property demanded that it must be recovered within a short time of the theft, and that there was only evidence of guilt when the person concerned did not give a reasonable Explanation as to how the property came into his possession. The defendant gave a reasonable explanation, which, though perhaps untrue, was yet reasonable.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PUP19280802.2.30
Bibliographic details
Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 248, 2 August 1928, Page 6
Word Count
221A RULE OF EVIDENCE. Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 248, 2 August 1928, Page 6
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Putaruru Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in