YOUTH'S DEFENCE IN BURGLARY CHARGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 35, 4 May 1927, Page 9

YOUTH'S DEFENCE IN BURGLARY CHARGE

BLAMES WITNESS FOR PROSECUTION: “BIT OF A FOOL”

Putting 1 the blame for an alleged burglary on one of the witnesses for the prosecution was a defence adopted in the Supreme Court to-day by Herbert Kilburn (Mr. Dickson), v a youth of 17 years. Mr. Justice Herdman presided. Accused was charged with having on December 8 broken and entered the shop of George Tutt and stolen clothing valued at £l2 0s 6d. The defence was that Kilburn went to the place at the suggestion of a friend, who was called as a witness by the prosecution, to get a packing case. ITe had no knowledge of the theft of the goods in the charge. Constable G. R. McLennan said that when he discovered Kilburn at the back of Tutt’s yard, he ran away but was caught again. A basket-making stiletto and a piece of oilcloth were found on the sill of a window of Tutt’s yard. A window on the second storey was open and a bar had been forced aside. Cross-examined, witness said that he had not found any stolen goods on the accused, who would have had no time to secrete anything. William Arthur Gordine, a basketmaker, said that Kilburn was at his workshop on the night of February 8. He left at 10.45 after taking off his coat and exchanging his shoes for a pair of sand-shoes. He admitted that the stiletto had been used on his premises, which were within a short distance of Tutt’s place. He was in straitened financial circumstances in February. Mr. Dickson: You saw accused take his coat and boots off at your premises. Why did he do so?—I do not know. Witness said he had been in camp with accused. He had not gone to Tutt’s place with Kilburn. Mr. Dickson: This man l\as taken the responsibility of shielding you! Mr. Dickson said that the accused had no common sense, but came of respectable parents. Gordine told Kilburn that he ‘would like some boxes which were at the back of the place, and the accused certainly went to the place. It would have been a physical impossibility to hide the stolen goods, however, if he had committed the burglary.. Accused, in evidence said that the idea in going to Tutt’s place was to get a packing case in which to pack some baskets. “I was a bit of a fool, I suppose,” he said. Gordine was on the premises the whole time he was there. Witness had not been on the top premises at all, and he had hot taken any of the goods. The statement he had made to the police was untrue. At that time he did not know that there had been a serious burglary. . His Honour: Can you explain how you' with Gordine came to be using an instrument on the window?—No. We just walked over and tried the window and then went for a box. Mr. Paterson, for the Crown, said that it was recognised now that Gordine had something to do with the case, and steps would be taken by the Crown. (Proceeding.)