CHARGE OF BURGLARY.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1922, Page 8

CHARGE OF BURGLARY.

AN ELTHAM CASE. THE JURY DISAGREE. The case for the defence in the trial of Bernard and Arthur Coulter for alleged breaking and entering at Eltham was heard in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on Saturday morning. There were a number of counts, the Crown alleging that the accused had entered the shop of A. E. Waugh, of Eltham, on the night of November 30. The first witness was Mrs. Beatrice Coulter, mother of the two accused. Since 1919 Arthur had been at. the engineering trade, and Bernard was doing casual work. On the night of November 30 she remembered the boys going out. Bernard was wearing a dark grey hat, slightly turned up, but not his best hat. She did not remember the boys coming home. At 1 o’clock in the morning she was awakened by a knock at the door, and found Constable .Townsend, who said he wanted to see one of the boys. Hearing the knock, Arthur had come into the passage, but the constable said it was not him, so they went up to the bedroom. There Constable Townsend aeked Bernard where he had been, and the boy replied that he had been to the billiard room. He asked the reason for the question, and when the constable said Rae accused him of being in the Bon Marche Bernard said it’ was a mistake. The skeleton keys were made for the doors, but the 'big one did not fit, as it was not finished.

Evidence was given by Charles Pennington to the effect that he was standing at Coulter’s gate when .Bernard and Arthur came home. It was about twenty minutes to eleven.

The question of what clothes Bernard Coulter was wearing on the night was dealt with in evidence ■ given by Victor Carlson and Roy Scoon. They said, he had a dark suit and a dark grey hat.

Constable Townsend was recalled to clear up a point about the keys. He said that, in company with Constable Andrews, he tried the doors of the house with the keys. The small one fitted the door of thh boys’ bedroom. Neither, however, fitted the front door. He went to try the lock of Mrs. Coulter’s room, and found that the keyhole was blocked up with paper. Mrs. Coulter said some children must have done it. He denied that he was able to turn the key in the lock. In addressing the jury, Mr. O’Dea characterised the evidence as very flimsy, and urged that there was no proof at all concerning Arthur Coulter. When confronted half-on-hour afterwards with what the police considered a tell-tale piece of evidence in the shape of the iron, he immediately gave an explanation of how he camo by it. Counsel commented on the methods of identification adopted by Constable Townsend, and urged that'it was not quite fair to bring Bernard Coulter out alone for identification, but that he should have been placed among a number of others. The jury’s retirement lasted four hours, when they returned, reporting that they were unable to agree. In reply to His* Honor, the foreman said there .was no chance of an agreement.

The jury was discharged, and His Honor ordered a new trial for to-day (Monday). •