SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 212, 6 March 1912, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTINGS. | The Supreme Court sessions opened at ; New Plymouth yesterday morning before Mr. Justice Sim. GRAND JURY EMPANELLED. The following grand jury was empannelled: Alfred Ernest Sykcs, Reuben I epperill. Francis M. Turxon, Henry Black, John Paton, Donald Kenneth Morrison, Alexander James Mcintosh, Alexander McHardv, James Wm. H. Martin, Harper Bryson Lepper, Alfred R. Lennon, Newton King, Mark Johnson, Jame« Havden, Alfred S. Hasell, Everard R. C. Gilmour, Reginald H. George, Oliver N Firth, William N. Ewing, Henry R. Catley, John Bennett, Wm. G. Reid, Arthur H. Ambury. Mr. Newton King was chosen foreman of the Grand Jury, HIS HONOR'S CHARGE. Addressing the Grand Jury, His Honor said that on the criminal side there were six cases, an unusually large number for this district. None of them, however, were of a very serious character. There was one case in which a man was charged with indecent assault on a female, and another accused was charged with an offence under the Post Office Act. The other four cases were charges of_ offences against property. In one case, in which a man,was charged with theft from a dwelling-house, it appeared that the accused drove up to the house on two occasions on the date in question, and on both occasions he brought articles away from the house. A man who went with him gave evidence in the lower court, and it appeared that the accused afterwards took the detective to the place where the articles were concealed, so that the jury would have very little difficulty in finding a trua bill against the accused. Another case was that in which a Maori was charged with breaking into a bacon factory and stealing a quantity of ham and bacon from it. The factory was closed on September 14, but .when one of the propietors went to it on the following day he found that the premises had been broken into and some ham and bacon stolen. It also appeared that the accused was at the factory on the night in question, and that he made a confession afterwards to the police, admitting at any rate some connection with the theft. He accused another man of having stolen the arti-. cles, but admitting taking part in ths theft, and gave up a ham which wan identified as having come from the fac- ; tory in question. Probably the grand jury would have little difficulty- in this case in coming to the conclusion that , | the accused should he put on his trial. • In another case a man was charged with

stealing a watch. It appeared that accused took the watch from the owner whilst at some stables. The proprietor of the stables saw what took place and demanded the watch back, and it was given up. If the jury was satisfied that the accused took, the watch' from the owner, the fact that he afterwards gave it up would not affect the case, as the fact that he took it made the theft complete. Another case was that in which a man was charged with attempti ing to steal a pocket-book containing : money. The owner of the pocket-book

was at the Hawera races on February 17, and another man saw the accused

put his hand into informant's pocket, and the informant (Radford) said he felt his pocket-book moving upwards. It was not actually taken from him, however. Radford said the pocket-book contained £SO. The accused in this case was charged with - attempting •to steal, and if the grand jury was satisfied that the evidence showed that accused did put his hand inside Radford's coat for the purpose of attempting, if possible, to take his pocket-book away, then they should find a true bill against him. In connection with the charge of indecent assault, the jury* had before them the young woman on whom it was said the assault was committed, and if she repeated her story as she told it in the lower co'urt they would have no difficulty in concluding that the accused should be put on trial. The last case was that in which a man was charged with an offence under the Post Office Act. The accused was a man named

Thomas McMillan, and it appeared there was a Robert McMillan living at Bulkeley terrace. In November last Robert McMillan left New Plymouth on a visit to Auckland, and whilst he was away some letters came for him to the Post Office and were lying there for him, but, according to the evidence of one of the Post Office officials, these letters were delivered to the accused. After further reviewing the case, His Honor said that if the jury were satisfied with the evidence of the Post Office official and other witnesses that the accused did get those letters which were lying at the Post Office for Robert McMillan, then they would find a true bill against him. TRUE BILLS.

True bills as follow were returned in all the cases:—Te Kira. breaking and entering and theft; C. P>. Lumsden, jun., indecent assault; W. J, Ross, theft from a dwelling; W. Ryan, theft from the person; T. McMillan, detaining a postal packet; Saunders, attempted theft from person.

ALLEGED THEFT., The first case called was that of x young man named Walter James Ross. He was charged (1) with theft, and (2) with receiving stolen goods. The goods, which largely comprised wearing material, were alleged to have been stolen from a shed on Mr. Herman Brown'* place, Fitzroy. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. J. E. Wilson. Mr. C. H. Weston, acting under instructions from the Crown Solicitor (Mr. T. S. Weston) appeared on behalf of tij-* Crown.

The following jury was empanelled:— Joieph Swan, Albert Peterson, Georgs Stewart, John Edward Avery, Herbert Sinclair, William Roberts, Francit Grayling, Cameron Buchanan, Frank Tait, Arthur B. Bullot, Edgar H. Carter and A. F. Courtney. Mr. Roberts was chosen foreman.

In outlining .the main features of th» [ case, Mr. Weston said that evidenco I would be called upon to show that on the morning of January 10 Mr. and Mrs. Brown left their house on the Hospital road and drove to Waitara. In an outLouse Mrs. Brown left two boxes containing clothes and various article*, which were securely fastened. Returning in the evening it was at once apparent that the shed had been broken into, and investigation showed that certaU goods were missing. On the day in question a witness (Hurry Pearee) was met by accused at Xuw Plymouth driving in a trap. They had a drink and then drove out to Brown's. The Browns were not known by Pearee. When accused drove up to the house, Pearee stayed outside on the road in the trap while Ross got out and went up the avenue to the house. H« stayed there some few minutes. Pearco did not -notice he had brought anything out with him. They then drove to Tweedale's socond-hand shop. When they reached Tweedale's accused produced a coat and waistcoat, and asked the proprietress to buy the articles. Sho refused, and the men asked her for a. shilling. She refused, and they left tha coat and waistcoat with her. According to Pearee, both returned to Brown's, and drove tip the avenue to the stables. The accused got out and went up to

the house, and told Pearce nobody was | there. H« then went into the itable* and brought out something in a sack. | Then then drove to Waitara, subsequentily returning to town. Accused was arrested on the Earawa and subsequently •aid to the detective, "That's the coat i and vest, ia it?" He added that the rest would be found near the cliff in the vicinity of the East End Bathing Shed. Accused said he was not sure what was in the parcel, because he had been drinking. Not all the articles missing, however, were found on search being made by the police. On those facts he had been charged first of theft, and secondly with receiving the. goods, knowing them to havo been unlawfully obtained. Evidence was given by Mrs. Brown, owner of the missing articles. Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson, Mrs, Brown said that Harry Pearce had never been to her house prior to January 16. Harry Pearce, laborer, adniitted having met Hie accused on January 16 and | having driven to Brown's pla,ce in his company. Witness held the horse out-' •ide on the road. He could not see where accused, who was away about fifteen minutes, went to. When he returned he wild that nobody was at home. Witness did not notice him put anything into the trap. The second-hand shop was then visited, and they unsuccessfully tried to obtain a loan on a coat and waistcoat which accused produced from the trap. Later on in the day witness and Ross again visited the Browns, the latter going int6 the shed and procuring a sack, which was not empty. After the sack was put in the gig he did not.see it any more. During the day they had several more drinks together.

To Mr..Wilson:' On the day Koss met him he was not working. He denied having stopped Ross and asking him for ft drive. On the first visit to Brown's

'"! noticed nothing on Ross's person.) /hen lie left Brown's he did not a»k Ross to drive him to Tweedale's. When ' they got there Ross handed him a parcel. Witness denied having asked Rosa for it. Witness admitted, however, having -asked Mrs. Tweedale to advance him a few shillings on the parcel. When he and Ross went to Brown's on the second casion, the stable door was not locked.' He never "went" to Jury's stables the next morning. He was merely "calledin" there by a Mr. Bennock. The latter asked him where Ross and he had been with his horse. He did not ask Bennock where Ross was, and Bennock did not say, "What do you, want,Ross for?" It was a deliberate lie that witness replied, "He has a sack of mine." On the day he went for a drive he might have had a dozen drinks, and possibly less. Emma Tweedale recounted how Pearce had asked her to give hiru 5s on a bundle. She refused. Ross.was in the shop at the same time. The bundle was left, witness enquiring of Ross what his name was. He said it was William Hooker, and asked if she bought bottles. Detective-Sergeant Boddam also gave [ evidence, as outlined by counsel for the 1 Crown.

To Mr. Wilson: When Ross mentioned the sack he said he had been drinking at the time and he did not know what the sack contained.

In opening the case for the defence, Mr. Wilson said it was incumbent on accused to account for his knowledge of where the articles were. The evidenee which -would be put before the jury was not that Ross went and got the goods, but that Pearce was the man who got them and tried to dispose of them. The accused, in his evidence, told the Court that on the day in question Pearce had asked him where he was going. He replied, "For a -drive." Pearce said, "Can I come, too?" Witness replied, e ?;" .and they drove to the White Hart Hotel and had &"dTink...--They--then stood on the footpath and talked. In answer to Pearce, he said he was going for a drive, and Pearce again asked leave to accompany him. They subsequently both drove up to Mrs. Brown's place at the Hospital road, and drove m the gate, leaving Pearce sitting in the gig. Witness then went to the house, knocked and found nobody home, and then came out to the gig and drove away again. On the way back to town Pearce said, "Call at Tweedale's." This witness did, Pearce going into tbe shop with a parcel, which he asked Ross tohand over to him, and endeavored to sell it. Subsequently they, again drove at witness' instigation to Brown's. His reason for doing so was to get some • money from A. Callaghan, who' was often to be found at Brown's. 'Witness added that they drove the trap up the avenue, and when accused came back from the house Pearce was still in the gig, but it also contained a sack. Pearce iaid it was his. Pearce accompanied him as far as Henui, and after askin* witness to take charge of the sack till the morning, commenced to walk up the Hospital road. Witness then drove to the stable and "hid the sack out of the road. He saw no more of it until the day he was arrested.

To Mr. Weston: He knew Pearce well •before the day of the alleged theft. When they got to Tweedale's shop it did not strike him as curious that Pearce should produce a parcel. He did not think he asked Mrs. Tweedale for monev and, further, he denied having told her ins name was Hooker. On the occasion of the second visit to Brown's Pearce said he knew them. The reason whv witness hid the sack down by the East knd bathing shed was because he was * bit suspicious of it." The reason why he did not tell his story how Pearce

*nd not he himself took the bag to Detective Boddam was that he "thought it be(t to tell that to the Court." To Mr. Weston: He had on two pre▼ious occasions been convicted for theft. Robert Bennock said that he knew accused, and knew Pearce by sight. About 7.30 a.m. on a morning in January Pearae ciwr'e down and asked him if he had seen Roai. Witness replied in the negativs, and asked him what he wanted with him. The reply wafi, "Ross has a bag of mine." Pearce explained that it wag only a sack, and had "nothing" in it.

To Mr. Weston: He had not seen Ross prior to seeing Pearce, and did not know there was a sack on the premises. Witness also denied having called Pearce into the stable. He did not tell the detective, when he approached him with enquiries about the sack, that Pearce had been asking questions about one. Ross was not a friend of his wife, and the latter did not go down to see accused off on the night of his arrest Rarawa. She merely went to see a friend. Summing up, his Honor remarked that the case for the Crown rested very largely on the evidence of Pearce. , It was quite open 1 for the jury to assume that both accused and witness, who were friends, went out to Brown's to see what eould be picked up. If that were the vieWj then it did not matter whose hand it was that took the goods. If these two men agree* to steal the things, and if one did the stealing and the other the watching both were guilty. So it was really not necessary to decide whether Pearce or Ross was telling ths truthi It was open for the jury to believe, in fact, that it was a joint theft. If the jury were not satisfied that Ross di 1 not steal the goods, but rather Pear . then they were entitled to consider w: - ther it was reasonable to suppose th . Ross did not know that the goods he received had been stolen.

The jury retired at 3 p.m., At 4 p.m. the jury announced that accused 'had been found' guilty 'on the second charge—unlawfully receiving but. were unable to agree on the first charge. After further deliberation the jury again appeared, only to be again asked by His Honor to arrive at a more definite conclusion. Shortly • afterwards they filed into the Court with the verdict of guilty on both charges. Ross was remanded until 10.30 o'clock this morning for sentence.

alleged. betetoon of a pqstal packet: • . Thomas McMillan was charged (1) with obtaining letters by false pretences, and (2) with unlawfully detaining postal matter. Accused, who pleaded not guilty j was defended: 7 by Mr: : Quilliami Mr. C. H. Weston appeared for the Crown.

The jury, of which Mr. G. Pearce was chosen foreman, comprised James' Julian, Alfred Southam, C. Dugdale, Ernest Bishop, Edwin Foote, Daniel H. Bishop, William Deagle, Charles Skitrop, and A. Row,e.

Addressing the court, prosecuting counsel.said that on November 16' last an elderly man named. Robert McMillan, resident in Bulkley Terrace, went away on a holiday, but before doing so he notified the postal authorities that any letters' that came for him during his absence were to be kept at the' Post Office, pending his return. The following day several letters arrived, addressed to McMillan. Accused, T. F. J. McMillan, was at that time in the employ of Boon Bros., and some two or three weeks before the 16th he got on friendly terms with one of the clerks in the post office. Another clerk (a witness in the case) was prepared to swear that on' Saturday, December 2. accused, whom he knew by siglit but not by name, asked him over the counter for any letter for Mr. Mc-. Millan,-of Bulkley Terrace, as he had been away for a week or so. The letters were handed to him. Subsequently, Rob : ert McMillan returned from his holiday, and' on December 4 asked for letters, which, however, were not there. Accused was several times communicated with and asked to return the lettera given to him in mistake, but on each occasion he denied any knowledge of them, but stated it was possible a brother of hie (whom counsel alleged could not be traced) had called for the letters. If accused's-story-about his brother WHS' right, it was open for him to call him as a witness and prove ( his assertions up to the-hilt. The fact that the brother, who was said to exist, had not written should also weigh with the jury. Robert McMillan, retired farmer, living in Bulkley Terrace, said his house had two frontages, and went <on to state that before he left on his holiday last November, he had not given anybody authority to get his letters, which he arranged to be detained at the post office. Witness did not know the accused. He had a son called Thomas, who was. away from home last November. He expected letters, some containing money, to arrive during his absence. Since November, howeyer, he had not had any inquiries after letters, which were supposed' not to have reached him.

A. R. J. Parker, letter-carrier, gave evidence to the effect that there was only one McMillan living in Bulkley Terrace in Hine street. His name was Robert McMillan, and on November 16 lie went away on holiday. The following day two letters came addressed to the McMillan in question, but finding that he was not at home he (Parker) returned the letters to the post office, and saw thet they were re-ad<hessed care of the post office.

Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam, witness failed to see that it was through some "mistake" of the post office that the order directing that McMillan's letters were to be detained at the post office did not reach him on the morning of November 17 before he set out on his rounds with the missing letters. According to the evidence of L. H. Pepperill, telegraph clerk in New Plymouth , Post Office, accused became acquainted with him some weeks prior to the date of the alleged offence, and several times called in to see him (witness). _ He would, not like to say whether the friendship of the accused was of his or McMillan's seeking. Contrary to what he had stated in.the lower court, he had a very slight recollection of having delivered one letter to accused.

Mr. Quilliam: Do you suggest that the accused came to the post office in order to worm himself into your confidence? Witness did not think so, and added that, being an amateur photographer, accused on two occasions called and brought him photographs of Mount Egmont.

Eric Lightburn, cadet at the post office, recollected a man coming into the post office one afternoon in November —he did not know the date—and asking for letters for Mr. McMillan, of Bulkley Terrace. He did not know the man by sight. He saw Brabant hand some letters to him.

To Mr. Quilliam: He could not remember the names of any other persons asking for letters' that afternoon. lie did not know the day of the month on which the incident took place. He would not care to say that the man to whom he had referred to was the onlv man who had asked for letters that afternoon. L. P. Brabant, postal clerk, stationed at New Plymouth, said he knew accused by sight through his having been to see Pepperill on several occasions. On the afternoon 'of December 2 the accused came to the counter and said, "Are there any letters for McMillan, Bulkley Terrace? We haye been away for ». week nr

(witness) at the time, ft was a slack • afternoon. When accused came in he recognised him as the man who used to call in to see Pepperill. Three or four of the letters were marked "window." McMillan was an uncommon name in New Plymouth, and there were no other letters in the box addressed McMillan, j On the Monday morning following the I rightful owner turned up, and witness I took steps to ascertain where accused lived. This done, he sent a messenger to I him with a note asking him to return the letters as they had been delivered in ' mistake. The note came back opened, together with a verbal message from accused. McMillan also rang him up on the telephone denying that he had the letters, but stating that his brother might be in town from Waitara on a certain day, and he would bring him along to the post office to see if they had been wrongly delivered to him. McMillan' had neither called for letters before or j after December 2. '

To Mr. Quilliam: He had never before that day (March 6) seen the notice sent in by Mr. Robert McMillan, which concluded: "We will be away for a week or so"—the words he himself had attributed to accused. He told Robert McMillan when lie called that he had given the letters to his son. He was aware that from the very first 'accused had denied receiving the letters from him. Charles A. Scrivener, telegraph messenger, deposed that when he had delivered Brabant's note to accused, at Mrs. Smith's house, he (McMillan) in returning it to him said he had not received any letters from the post office. It might lave been his brother.

W. T. Coad, chief clerk at the post office, said he had left a note at accused's house, demanding the return of the letters. As a result he got a telephone message from, accused to this effect: "About those letters. My brother will be in town to-morrow and I will bring him along to see if he. has received the letters in mistake." Neither the. brother nor the accused had, however, called in to see witness, but he had received i letter from McMillan relative to his brother coming to town. ' Another witness, Mary Ann Smith, stated that accused had been a lodger at her house, and that on December 7 he left a note in his room stating that he had gone into the country to do a private jab. He added that he might be in on the following Saturday afternoon, but she was not to tell anybody that he' had gone. That was the last she saw of him.

■To.Mr.Quilliam: She knew now that two persons-who had called to see accused were "dunning" him for deht. This, commented counsel, was sufficient reason for McMillan hot wishing to disclose his whereabouts.

Detective-Sergeant Boddam deposed to arresting.accused at the Coffee Palace, New .Plymouth. McMillan then denied the offence. Accused was with his wife at the time.

.The accused, when put in the box, said that he first came to New Plymouth three months before the date of the alleged offence. N He left Mrs. Smith's in order to get married, ISarly.in December he was working;." at New Plymouth for Boon Bros., builders. His daily work took him into the country a good deal, and when he was in town it was his practice to call for letters there. He was introduced to Mr. Pepperill, from which official he had on two or three occasions received letters. On other occasions he called to see Pepperill. He had no recollection of receiving any letters on December 2 or any other particular date, but being' engaged to be married at the time he frequently received letters, and that took him to the post office pretty often. Up to the day of his trial he did not know that there was such a person as Robert McMillan in existence. Indeed he did not know that there was such a place as Bulkley Terrace. It he had received any letters addressed to another McMillan *the first sight would have told him that, they were not his* property. He denied having mentioned to Scrivener that his brother might have.received the letters. Later on he volunteered the information on the telephone.

His Honor: Why should you think the letters might be given" to your brotherany more than yourself? Counsel explained that his brother was expected at New Plymouth a± ,the time,' and he usually called" for his letters. His Honor: Did your brother come to town? Accused: No! Hie Honor: Well, where is your brother? McMillan: When I was in Christchurch I: heard he was at Auckland. His Honor: Well, have you seen him yet? Witness: No! To Mr. Weston: He had spent twelve months of his life in goal, on account of three convictions on charges of false pretences. He did not remember that the Chief-Detective in Christchurch had described his case as one of the worst brought before his notice. Since his arrest he had- taken no steps to trace the whereabouts of his brother. When he referred to his going "into the country for a private job" he was in reality going to get married—at New Plymouth. He did not think it strange that his prospective wife should, as he alleged, be always writing to him through the post when they were both residing at New Plymouth. According to His Honor, the substantial question, the jury had to decide was Whether the letters were delivered to accused. The case for the Crown rested almost entirely on the evidence of Brabant. As regards accused's brother, it might almost be suggested that he was a creation of McMillan's own imagination. The jury retired at 5.43 p,rn., and after seventeen minutes' deliberation the foreman announced that as no evidence had been adduced to prove that Robert McMillan lost any letters, the jury had come to the conclusion thaty there was not sufficient proof that accused had stolen any letters, and a verdict of not gnilty was accordingly returned.