THE GOLD ROBBERY AT CLYDE.

Southland Times, Issue 1308, 16 September 1870, Page 3

THE GOLD ROBBERY AT CLYDE.

Malcolm M'Lennan, lately a constable in the Otago police service, was indicted at the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Wednesday, the 7th inst, with having, on the Ist ult., aided and abetted one Greorge "Rennie in. stealing from the lock-up, Clyde, 200 ounces of gold and £1,700 in bank notes. Mr Haggitt prosecuted on behalf of the Crown,' and Mr Barton defended the prisoner. The evidence mainly relied upon for a conviction was that of Eennie, who gave the following particulars of the robbery. Prisoner and witness arrived in the colony in March, 1869. They had been on friendly terms both, before and after their arrival. Some time prior to the robbery, witness received a number of letters from the prisoner, who was then stationed at Clyde. They were to the effect that if he (witness) would come to Clyde some dark night prisoner would give him as much gold as he could carry. At a subsequent date an interview took place between the parties at Arrowtown, when the robbery was concocted. Witness had taken the precaution of burning all the letters which passed between prisoner and himself. In pursuance of their plans^ witness went to Clyde on the evening of Sunday, July 3rd^ and met prisoner on the Cromwell side of the town. He gave him the key of the outside door of the lock-up, a wrench to open the gold-boxes, and furnished information necessary to assist him in carrying out the theft. They proceeded to the back of the cauip at Clyde, where prisoner left him for a short time. On again returning he said it would not do that night as he had seen the Inspector, who told him that there was too much gold in the camp, and he would have to go on sentry. Witness then returned to Arrowtown as quietly as possible. Some time afterwards he received a letter from prisoner, telling him to come down to Clyde on the evening of Sunday, the 31st. In compliance with that communication, witness arrived at Clyde at about 10 p.m. He met prisoner outside the township, who furnished him with a bottle of porter and some oats for his horse. He said that their arrangements were all right, and directed witness to go round to the back of the carap about midnight. Witness went as directed, and was shortly afterwards joined by the prisoner, who said "it was all right now," and made some remarks about the best place for planting the gold. He (witness) then effected an entrance into the lock-up, but before doing so, M'Lennan told him to take plenty of time, as there was no danger, and that he would keep watch at the outside, and tap on the window if they were at all likely to be disturbed. On going inside, the door was closed after him, and he proceeded to take off the screwß fastening the plate of the inner door. About this time prisoner tapped on the window, and witness heard a noise as of children crying. He remained quiet for a few minutes, and then proceeded with the operation. Three of the screws were got out, and the door plate was pushed on one side, which gave him access to the boxes. These were taken out one by one, after which the outside door was locked. M'Lennan then met witness outside, and told him to get away with the gold as fast as possible. It was deposited in a bag and swagged on to a horse that had been tied up outside the camp. He (witness) then proceeded in the direction of Arrowtown, planting the gold and notes at different places as he went along. His horse got knocked up on the Gentle Annie track, and he concealed the saddle and burnt part of the bridle, the false whiskers, &c, with which he had been disguised. In cross-examination, prisoner said that the constable by whom he was apprehended mentioned to him about the reward and free pardon to an accomplice turning informer. It was after that communication that he stated the circumstances of the robbery. Witness recollected a conversation with the constables, when he replied, in answer to a question, " Upon my soul there was no one but myself connected with the robbery." He denied having invoked the name of God, but admitted that he had had certain pecuniary transactions with the prisoner. In summing up, the judge (Mr Justice Chapman) made pointed reference to the fact that Eennie admitted he expected to receive part of the reward, and. he therefore went into the witness-box with what to him was a very great game to play. Circumstances had occurred to cast suspicion upon Eennie, and he was apprehended by the police. It might be that he had sagacity enough to see the case against him, and the proclamation which had been issued some days previously occurred to his mind, and questions passed between himself and the police. Then perhaps it occurred to Eennie that he had better confess. Now, what was the use of his confessing without an accomplice, for unless there was an accomplice in the case, he would neither be entitled to the pardon nor any portion of the reward. As to the law not requiring corroborative testimony to support the evidence given by an approver, the learned judge said that it appeared to him to be a distinction without a difference. It was a practice judges had always observed, and which both they and juries ought always to follow, that such evidence required confirmation. His Honor afterwards commented on the evidence, remarking that in this case it was evident one man could commit the crime, as one man had actually done it. Descrepanciea in Eennie's statement wero alluded to, and in conclusion the following directions were given to the jury : — Are the several little circumstances of corroboration such as to induce you to give credit to Eennie's testimony ? If you believe that testimony to be true, it is competent for you to find a verdict against the prisoner ; but if you think there is no corroboration, and that so far as the prisoner is concerned, Eennie has been concocting a story for the purpose of obtaining the reward, you will, of

course, acquit the prisoner. If you have any reasonable doubt on this question, you will give him the benefit of the doubt. The jury retired, and after an absence of 55 minutes, returned a verdict of not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor declined to proceed with a second indictraent preferred against the prisoner, and he was accordingly liberated.