WHO THREW THE STONE?

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 309, 8 June 1915, Page 3

WHO THREW THE STONE?

i SEQUEL TO WINDOW BREAKING. \ ATTACK ON HART'S SHOP. POLICE CASIO FAILS. ' At the Magnate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crookc, S.M., Leonard Copestake, for whom Mr. A. 11. Johnstone appeared, was charged by the police that on May 17th he broke a window in the business promises occupied by John Hart, and he was also charged with throwing a stone and damaging a window of the premises of John Hurt. Copestake pleaded not guilty on each charge. Sub-Inspector Fouliy said there was a patriotic gathering at the Theatre, and trouble was anticipated. Th-refore a constable was stationed outside (Tart's shop. At (lie conclusion of llic jjatheriug two stones were (brown. 'J lie second broke a window in Hart's shop, and they would bring evidence to show that accused threw this stone.

John Hart, a fancy goods dealer, of Devon and Eginont Street, said ho was .absent when the window was broken. The cost of replacing the glass was estimated at £8 10s. Hart said he had heard rumors of an attempted raid on his shop, but why they should single him out for these attentions he did not know. He was of purely English descent. His parents were born at Portsmouth amKhe at Dunedin. He could trace his ancestry back some 500 years in England, and could not imagine why people should imagine that he was a German. He had not felt the slightest fear that his premises would he damaged. To Mr. Johnstone: The bulk of nis goods were of British and American manufacture, and some were Japanese. Some classes of goods could only lie obtained from Germany. He had a quantity of goods of German manufacture. George Hart, son of the previous witness, said he was on the watch outside ■ his father's premises on the night of May 17th. He was standing on tho corner of Devon and Egmont Streets with two others, named Bilski and Brmmd. ; He saw defendant step out in front of the crowd, and raising his arm, throw a stone. He heard the sound of the stone striking the window, and noticed that as accused threw the stone, his hat fell oil'. He told Constable Brown of what he had seen, and later he saw the constable in conversation with ac- ] cused, and told the constable that that J was the man who threw the missile. i

In answer to Mr. Johnstone, witness said the events he had described occurred between fifteen and ten minutes to eleven o'clock. There was a large number of people moving about the street at the time. The stone came from the direction of a point btween the shops of Avery (the tobacconist) and Avery (the stationer). The shops were not illuminated, and there was no moon. He only recognised one of the men standing with accused, and that was Butley, who later told witness and Sergeant Bowdon that he was standing with accused, and he did not throw the stone. He could not recognise any of the others, and had never seen accused before, He did not examine the window after the stone was thrown. He thought that that particular missile broke the window, as he heard it strike something. Accused at the time was wearing a light hat and dark suit.

To Sub-Inspector Fouhy, both accused and Butley "had a drink in" at the time of the occurrence.

Joseph Brown, police constable, who was on duty near Hart's shop on May 17th, said that during the evening a stone was thrown which reached the water table, and a few minutes later another stone hit tho window. Two or three minutes later he saw accused On being asked his name, accused said he had none. He. then gave the name -,.f Fred Copestake. On being told he was accused of breaking Hart's window he walked away. In reply to Mr. Johnstone, the constable said that what be did was at the suggestion of- young Hart. He was plainly visible to anyone in the vicinity. If a man stepped out from the crowd on the. other side of the street and threw a stone he would have had no difficulty 'n seeing him.

In answer to the magisttrate, the eonstable said he was not facing the direction from which the stone was thrown. It was thrown from his right-hand side. There were a large number of people about at the time, on both footpaths, and also on the road.

John Paul Bilski, employed by Hart, said lie saw accused throw a stone at Hart's window on the night in question He heard the stone strike, but did not examine the window until the next morning. Accused stepped out two paces from the crowd when he threw the stone.

In answer to Mr. Johnstone, witness said he was positive'that accused was standing on the footpath at the time the stone was thrown, but was not sure of the position in which he was standing. Accused was wearing a light hat and light colored clothes. George D. Braund said he saw the stone thrown on the night of May 7th. The man who threw it stepped out three or four yards in front of some others before doing so. He was under the verandah outside Morey's premises, which were not lighted at the time. Replying to questions by Mr'. Johnstone, witness said he considered it would be an injustice to anyone to identify them after only seeing him across the street. Anyone standing in t'te vicinity could ha "j seen the man throw the ston:\

Constable Fitzgibbon, who was talking to Constable Brown at the tune of the occurrence, gave corroborative evidence.

CASE FOR THE DiOyENCH. Mr. Johnstone said the 'le.fence he was going to raise was tint of mistaken identity. lit submitted that ihe contradictory nature of the evidence proved that in the circumstances it must have been extremely difficult to recognise anyone, particularly a complete stranger. Win. H. Falconer, a laborer, said on the evening of May 17th he was standing on the footpath in front of Avery's shop in Devon Street. He saw accused there, and, as he had evidently had a drink, he watched him. He was watching accused at the time he heard the stone strike the window, and he was certain that accused did not throw the stone.

In answer to Sub-Inspector Fouliy, he. said he was not a friend of accused.

To the Magistrate: He did not hear what accused was saying.

Albert Robson, salesman for John Abbot, tinsmith, of Devon Street, said that on May 17th he was standing outside

Morey's talking with Jury and Paul. 1 He saw Cupestakc approach' Paul and 'address him. lie also saw the police I speak to Copestake. He saw him throw ! no stone, and was in a position to do so .had he thrown one. lie was watching 'accused on account of his having the ■appearance of having had some drink. lie did not see the stone thrown nor \ hear* it strike the window.

POLICE AND COUNSEL. Roy Jury, hairdresser, said he was standing with Simpson, Paul, and Robson during the evening in question, and Copestake came along tho road, and stood for some minutes talking to them. He did not see him throw a stone. In reply to the Sub-Inspector, M.\ A. H. Johnstone said tho man Simpso,i to whom the witness Jury had referred was employed at the telephone exchange and "could not be got at," Sub-Inspector Fouhy: No, he could not be got at!

Mr. Johnstone objected to the implied suggestion in the sub-inspectors remark. Sub-Inspector Fouhy: I only repeated your words. I always claim the right to do that.

Mr. Johnstone: I object to the suggestion. The sub-inspector remarked that Mr. Johnstone had no cause for bis warmth. Mr. Johnstone declared he was not touchy, but the inspector had no right to make such a suggestion. The magistrate said he did not think the sub-inspector meant his remark to be taken literally. After some further words the subinspector said his Worship was right in ins opinion, and the matter then dropped. Leonard Copestake, laborer, working at Fitzroy, said he was known among his workmates as Fred Copestake. Kt (losing time he left the Imperial Hotel and walked towards the Criterion Hotel, hud later wandered up to Avery's shop. He stopped there about a quarter of. an hour talking to Jury, Paul, and some others. A constable took his name, but gave no reason for doing so. Constable Fitzgibbon, and also Butley, later told him that he was accused of throwing a stone. He did not throw a stone or anything else; neither did he hear a stone thrown.

George McDowell, laborer, employed by Mr. Kingdon, said he was with accused the whole evening, and neither heard nor saw a stone thrown. He had heard that Hart's shop would be bombarded, and was waiting there to see what happened.

Mr. Johnstone said the police had not properly identified tho accused, and there was no proof that the, particular stone which they saw thrown broke the window. There was no evidence to prove that the window was not broken u month before. The two witnesses who identified the. man disagreed to the position from which the stone was thrown, and as to the accused's clothing. The magistrate said the whole point was identification, and he did not think the case brought by the police was sufficient proof. If Mr' Johnstone had asked him at the end of the rase, for the police ke would have said, there was no case to answer. But accused's case had not been improved by his own witnesses. The accused's identification had not been proved, and the charge would be dismissed.