Dazzling Array of Jewels in Court

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 718, 18 July 1929, Page 1

Dazzling Array of Jewels in Court

TWO MEN FOR TRIAL CHARGES OF THEFT AND RECEIVING Row upon row of gold brooches studded with brilliants and pinned on a length of black velvet; nearly 50 watches of every conceivable make and design; 84 rings and pendants and watchchain seals made of New Zealand greenstone —and all valued by the owner at no more than £6B.

Edward James Euesden, a boilermaker aged 35, stood In the Police Court dock this morning charged with stealing the jewellery, exhibit A, and the property of Walter Zaehariah Slaney, on June 28. George Lee, aged 36, who stood beside him, was charged with receiving the jewellery on the same date, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for both men. Walter Zaehariah Slaney identified the jewellery as his property. He had left it locked in a detached room at his house, No. 15A Vincent Street, where Euesden and his wife had been tenants. He had reserved the detached room as a storeroom and put the jewellery there seven years ago. In answer to Mr. Sullivan, witness said that he had seen the jewellery within the last three years. Detective-Sergeant McHugh told the story of the evening of July 4 when he and four other detectives had called on Lee at his house. “I made some inquiries and obtained a search warrant to examine Lee’s house at 12 Cook Street,” he said. “I was with Detectives Hunt, Aleen, Belton and Mills, and we went through the back door into the kitchen. There we found the two accused with their wives, a seaman named Hewitt, and a child. I called Lee aside and told him we had come to search for stolen jewellery. He denied that there was any stolen jewellery in the house, and we started our search, Detective Hunt coming upstairs with me.” Witness said that one bedroom was locked, and Lee, who had accompanied the detectives, called for his wife to bring the key. The jewellery was found in a chest-of-drawers in the bedroom. When Lee was invited to make an explanation he had said, “You have it; you know all about it. Euesden brought the jewellery to my house about a week ago saying that he got it from a room at the back of his house in Vincent Street. If you take us there you will get a lot more.” Witness said that Lee would make no written, statement and would not make any admissions in front of Euesden. Witness, Detective Hunt and Lee had then gone down to the kitchen where Euesden had been questioned about the jewellery. His reply ' had been that he knew nothing of it, : being only a visitor to the house. Lee had then chiDped in: “There is nobody in this theft but me. I will take all the blame.” Witness arrested both accused, and : went to Euesden’s home where he found the room that had been mentioned. It was locked, so the detective had climbed through the window. He had examined the room and come away after closing it. The hasp on the window was forced up. The room had apparently been searched, and there was no jewellery there. Mr. Sullivan submitted that there s was no evidence on which to send the . men to the Supreme Court. Lee’s j statement was not evidence. “There is not much evidence,” - agreed the magistrate, “but I think ; we will let a jury deal with it.” r Both accused were committed for s trial separately, Mr. Sullivan entering 5 pleas of not guilty. Bail was renewed as before.