REMUERA HAUL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 730, 1 August 1929, Page 1

REMUERA HAUL

JEWELLERY FOUND IN BEDROOM GUILTY OF RECEIVING Between £6O and £7O worth of jewellery was displayed at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon when George Lee (Mr. J. J. Sullivan) was charged with stealing and receiving jewellery valued at £6B 19s. Mr. Justice Ostler was on the Bench and Mr. V. N. Hubble appeared for the Crown. Joseph Zakariah Slaney, retired jeweller, said that he rented a house to Edward James Euesden in Vincent Street. One room detached from the house witness kept for himself and stored jewellery in it. When he took stock of the jewellery he found about £6O worth missing. Detective-Sergeant McHugh said that he searched accused’s house in Cook Street on July 4 and found the missing jewellery in a drawer. Accused said the jewels had been brought to him for safe keeping by Euesden, but later said he was responsible.

Accused said he saw the jewellery for the first time when it was taken from the drawer. It was possible that it had been left there by other boarders who stayed at the house. After the jury had been addressed by counsel the case was adjourned until this morning. Summing up this morning, his Honour said the defence contained the serious charge that the police manufactured false words for the accused for the purpose of convicting him. “It seems strange that the accused admits everything stated by the police that does not implicate him, but denies everything that does so, giving words slightly different from those quoted by the police.” His Honour said that he had permitted accused’s past record to be examined, in view of the contradiction of the police evidence, to enable the jury to decide as to the side on which the truth was more likely to be.

“I have often heard the police crossexamined as to words used by an accused, with the object of showing that he used words something like those attributed to him, but I cannot remember any case iu the course of my experience where the police have been deliberately charged with the serious crime of manufacturing false words unlike those that the accused admits he used, for the purpose of getting convictions,” said his Honour. “That, of course, is a charge of criminal conspiracy against the police, and if they are guilty of such a charge they are not fit to remain in the police force, but are liable to a long term of imprisonment.” The jury retired to consider its verdict. The jury returned shortly after twelve o’clock, stating that they could not agree. “Well, I’m sorry, but I can't discharge you until after four hours,” said his Honour. “You must agree, or agree to disagree, until the time is up. I am sorry, but I can’t help it. It is the law.” The jury retired again.

After three hours’ retirement the jury returned with a verdict of guilty of receiving, but not guilty of theft. The prisoner was remanded until Saturday for sentence.