ALLEGED BURGLARY.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 March 1922, Page 6

ALLEGED BURGLARY.

A CARDIFF INCIDENT. ONE INFORMATION DISMISSED. (Own Reporter) March 29. Before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., at the Stratford. Magistrate’s Oourt today, Andrew Grant, Hart was charged on' two counts with breaking and entering and theft from the premises at Cardiff of H. R. Crawford of a quantity of cigarettes and a clock; also with receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen. Sergeant Dale conducted the case for the police and Mr. R. V. Kay appeared for the defence. Sergeant Dale said that on the night of December 6 Crawford locked up his shop at Cardiff and proceeded to Stratford. On the road he met accused, who appeared to be the worse for drink. The evidence would show that acuaed called at two farmers’ houses and asked for cigarettes. Accused was an inveterate cigarette smoker. On the following morning Crawford found his store had been broken open and two boxes of cigarettes and a clock were missing. The same morning two packets of cigarettes and a hat were found on the road. No more was heard of the breaking and entering until March 6, when Consta/ble Chesnutt visited Hart’s house at Stratford.. While speaking to accused’s wife the constable saw a clock on a shelf similar in description to the one missing from the Cardiff store. The police took possession of the clock and Hart was taken to the police station, where he explained that he found the clock on the road.

H. R. Crawford gave evidence on the lines detailed by Sergt. Dale, and stated that the clock found on accused’s premises was identical with the one witness had left in his store.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kay, witness admitted that the clock might not be his, although it was precisely similar to the one he had in his store.

William Crawford, who assisted his father in the store, gave evidence as to the missing goods, and identified the clock found in accused’s house as the one kept in the store. He had known accused for about 9 months and had seen him wearing a hat similar io that found on the road. Cross-examined, witness said Hart had been at the store about December 6, and had previously passed the store about 5 o’clock in the afternon, but he had always been going in the opposite direction t-o that in which Crawford senior had seen him going. The’ wood of the door by which an entrance had been effected was apparently crushed by some blunt steel instrument. There was money about the premises, but none in the till. John Percy Hancock said he found 3 packets of cigarettes and a hat on the road about half a mile from the store on the morning after the alleged burglary. They were wet from the rain of the previous night. George Sleeman said he knew Hart, who came to his farm near the Cardiff store on the date in question, when witness paid him a cheque. Hart was then wearing a hat similar to the one found on the road. Cross-examined, witness said Hart was not carrying anything at 7 o’clock on the night of the 6th. It was quite possible that accused arrived on witness’ farm as early as 5.30 o’clock. Evidence was also given by Constable Chesnutt and Sergeant Dale. The constable read a statement taken from accused. Sergeant Dale said he took a statement from Mrs. Hart, and this did not agree with that given by accused. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution Mr. Kay entered a plea of not guilty, and proceeded with the case for the defence. In evidence, accused said he was a laborer by occupation and about the date of the alleged burglary, was employed at Cardiff. He called at Sleeman’s farm on Decmeber 6 and passed the Cardiff store en route. He left Stratford on the evening in question and would pass the Cardiff store between 4 and 5 o’clock. The store was then open, and he saw Crawford at the door. He then went on to Sleeman’s farm to get a cheque. He later visited Patterson’s farm to get some cigarette papers, and afterwards visited Davison’s farm at about 8 o’clock. Leaving Davison’s he went via the Pembroke and Mountain Roads to his home in Stratford, arriving there at about 8.30 or 9 o’clock. He then had his hat on. He remained at home until about 7 o’clock next morning. The clock produced in Court was found by him on the roadside, either that morning or the next morning. He knew nothing whatever about the hat or the cigarettes mentioned in the information. He denied having come into possession of the clock by any other way excepting by having found it.

Cross-examined: Accused said on December 6 he was not exactly sober, but he did not gallop his horse up the Opunake Road. He had not told anyone but his wife that he found the clock, and had made no inquiries as to the ownership. He was drinking a good at that time, and it was drink that had got him into trouble on a previous occasion. At this stage His Worship asked the police if they thought the case was strong enough for committal and Sergt. Dale replied in the affirmative. Florence (Emily Margaret Hart, wife of accused, and J. W. Davison, farmer and contractor of Pembroke Road, also gave evidence.

At the conclusion of his ease, Mr. Kay said the question before the Court surrounded , the hat found on the road, , and this could not possibly connect the accused with the offence. Hart was in the vicinity for a perfectly legitimate reason, and the evidence showed that accused had his hat on when he returned home. The facts were s 6 circumstantial that it was quite possible some other person had committed the crime, even though the times in which accused was in the district unfortunately connected. • Accused was unable to bring evidence to show by what route he returned home, as he did not take any notice of anyone by the way, not expecting to be charged with the commission of the crime. Mr. Kay urged that the case be dismissed. His Worship said it seemed to him that the ease for the defendant was stronger before the defence was entered upon. He still thought the case for the prosecution needed strengthening it could be Nubgiitjed to a jury-

He could find no evidence to connect the accused with the crime excepting the possession of the clock. He though the circumstances were extremely suspicious, but the accused should have the benefit of the doubt and the information on the breaking and entering charge would be dismissed. This did not dispose of the matter. There remained the fa-ct of accused’s possession of the clock, and the explanation given by accused was not satisfactory. [ His Worship suggested that the information regarding the receiving of goods should be amended to read: “Well knowing the goods to have been dishonestly obtained.” This was accordingly done by the police and on the amended information accused was convicted and fined £3 and costs £3 10s, a prohibition order being taken out by consent. Fourteen days were allowed in which to pay the fine, the default being one month's imprisonment. The goods were ordered to be retained in the possession of the police until the rightful owner is found