DEAR TURKEYS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 310, 17 October 1929, Page 5

DEAR TURKEYS.

v SALESMAN CONVICTED. • {£ Theft at Putaruru. A plea of not guilty was entered *>y Edward Woods, a salesman, of: Hamilton, charged at the Putaruru Cc-url with the theft of two turkeys. DeU ctive-Sergeant Thompson prosecuted, and Mr. P. W. Hutchison appeared for the defendant. Leslie William Flynn, manager of a milking machine company, gave evidence to the effect that Woods was an employee of his firm. Accused was in the Putaruru district on the date in question. Jack Snelling Bailey stated that he managed his father’s farm at Tirau, and in addition to sheep and cattle there were 100 turkeys on the farm.

On the night of July 27 witness and / Jiis sisters were proceeding home ’ from the pictures when an unlighted car was seen standing on the roadside outside where the turkeys roosted. Witness, later returned to the car, and.,took its number and waited, being later joined by Nathaniel , Piper, an employee of his father. After waiting awhile three men were noticed coming through a gate, one of them carrying two dead turkeys, Ikk which he attempted to put in the * back of the car. The turkeys were later dropped on the road. Witness thought that two of the men were natives, and the other was a white man. The latter said “ It’s Mr. Bailey himself,” but when asked his name by witness he declined to give it. One of the natives struck witness, felling him to the ground. The men then drove away in the car. Though he could not swear to it, the y witness thought that the man was the defendant. It was fairly dark and rather difficult to, see, and for this reason the witness struck a match in the faces of the three men. He knew the turkeys to be his father’s because of rings they had on the legs.

In the course of cross-examination by Mr. Hutchison, the witness said that he was not positive that the defendant was the man, as he had only seen him by matchlight. He admitted after some hesitancy that he would have liked to have seen the person who had struck him brought to justice. Nathaniel Piper, who gave corroborative evidence, also believed that defendant was the man, though he was not prepared to swear it. Constable Atkins deposed that the defendant refused to make a statement. Mr. Hutchison said that he was not going to call evidence, but he contended that there was no case to answer. The witnesses'had refused -to swear that the defendant was the man who took the birds. The refusal to make a statement had no bearing on the case. The defendant had not been definitely identified, and ho turkeys had been found in his possession. There was nothing except weak circumstantial evidence against Woods. After quoting hypothetical cases, Mr. Hutchison said that in view of the fact that the man had not been identified the Magistrate would be taking a grave risk in convicting the defendant.

The Magistrate, Mr. Hewitt, said that if he had any doubt whatever he would be the first to give the defendant the benefit thereof. He was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. It was the defendant’s car on the spot, and it had been shown that he was it on the date in question. The witnesses had been perfectly -fair. In reference to the refusal to make a statement if he were not guilty, why did he not say so when asked by Bailey? He was satisfied. defendant fell to the temptation of taking the turkeys. A conviction and fine of £5 10s ■was imposed, this allowing of an appeal to be made if desired.