SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1922, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. CHARGE OF THEFT. ACCUSED ACQUITTED I (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman.) The New Plymouth sittings of the Supreme Court were commenced yesterday morning, when the only criminal case to be heard was taken. THE GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen formed the Grand Jury: Mr. W. J. Penn (foreman) and Messrs. A. W. Webster, E. R. C. Gilmour, R. Paul, R. H. Bartley, J. S. Connett, V. Duff, E. T. Holden, P. Doug -s, O. W. Firth, W. N. Short, W. H. J. j Cook, W. P. NicoU, R. T. McQuaid, H.; Cocker, E. Dingle, G. M. Fraser, J. W. Abbott, T. M. Avery, A. S. cooker, Geo. Duncan, E. Ansford, F. Movtt.ey, and W. C. Weston. HIS HONOR’S CHARGE. In his charge to the Grand Jury, His Honour said; “I am pleased to be able to say that your duties to-day are very light; indeed in marked contrast between the list I sent to the Grand Juty in February last and the one I hope to hand to you to-day. To-day’s duties are little more than nominal, and indicate that there is no marked degree of crime in this district—at any rate such crimes as com* before this Court. “There is only one bill for your consideration—a simple case. A man missed some < property —machinery—and it has been found that the accused had broken it up, or, at any rate, had it in a broken condition, in which he had sold it. There is no doubt as to identity. Your duties are to make out if this is a primie facie of stealing. With the defence you are not concerned. “I am very pleased to find that, despite the fact that in other parts of New Zealand Judges complained of the wave of certain classes of crime passing through the Dominion, there is nothing of that here.” TRUE BILL. A true bill was found in the case of The King v. Henry Louis Brennan, alleged theft, and the Grand Jury were then discharged. ALLEGED THEFT. Henry Louis Brennan was charged with the theft, at Puniho, on or about July 24, of some chaffcutting machinery belonging to William Grant, fanner; and secondly, with being in possession of same. Accused pleaded not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. C. H. Weston, conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr. P. O'Day appeared for the accused. The jury empanelled was as under: Messrs. R. Wall, K. Stohr, R. W. Penwarden, T. H. Bates, W. H. Woods, A. Alexander, J. S. Philp, G. O. M. Gibson, W. Tehan, E. Jury, H. Purdie, A. Evetts. Mr. A. Alexander was appointed foreman. The Crown challenged two and the defenp® three of the jurymen called. In his address, Mr. Weston stated accused was charged with stealing portion of some chaffcutting machinery at Okato. evidence would show* that some 12 years ago William Grant had bought a farm there, and that this machinery was od ’the place when he bought it. Grant would tell the jury that he was not living on the place. Mr. Weston then went on to recount the evidence which had been given in the lower court concerning the locality of the machinery, the discovery of its removal, and the subsequent inquiries whereby accused’s connection with it had been established. They could assume that it was the property of Grant. The case was an important one for farmers, who were obliged to leave things lying about on the farms unprotected.

Mr. Weston called William Grant, farmer, of Puniho, who had bought a farm from the trustees of the late Ben Gray. He did not live on the place, but on another farm. He bought the farm in 1911, and there was a horse-power plant for chaffcutting on the place. The wheel revolved on a spindle which was fixed in the ground, and the shaft led into a shed. He had never used the plant, and he valued the horse-power plant and shaft at about £lO. The shed was about 15 to 20 chains from the road. When the machinery was reported missing, he found that the horsepower plant and the shaft had been removed, and he could see the marks of a four-wheeled vehicle. He could see only the tracks of one in-and-out journey. There was no sign of anything having been broken—no chips or anything. He ha*d made inquiries of his neighbors with the view of ascertaining whether they had seen anybody on the place, and had then reported the matter to the police in New Plymouth. When communicated with by the police next day he was able to identify his property at Messrs. Rollo and Millar’s foundry. Witness identified the pieces produced in Court, which were found at the foundry. He had never given anyone authority to remove the machinery. He knew accused slightly, and had met him in Devon Street, when the accused had said that he was very smart in setting the police on to him. He did not think that, one man could lift the wheel into a cart: it would take about four men. To Mr. O’Day: The plant had not been used by him, and he had bought the place with everything on it. Mr. Ben Gray had taken away the intermediate. He had never attempted to use the plant, and could not say how long it was since it, had been used. He had not put in the cogs in the wheel. He had not suspected the accused; he had not suspected anyone in the district. He had not made any inquiries except from the natives living alongside of him. He had made none in the township, and he considered the machinery to be in good working order. Frank Grant, a son of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence concerning the existence of the machinery and its position on the farm. He last saw it there on July 18, but on July 27, the next time he went there, he discovered wheel tracks near the shed, and found that the horsepower plant had been removed. The tracks looked a few days old. He reported the matter tn his father as sodn as he went horn*. Hs frftd fjv<m co authority to jry>

move the machinery. He knew accused by sight, but not to speak to.

To Mr. O’Day: He thought the shed was about seven or eight chains from the road. The plant had not been used to his knowledge. He visited the place about once or twice a week. There was no one living on the place. The horse-power plant was outside the shed and looking about as useful as it did now. He would not swear that he had not spoken to Brennan and had not^known where he lived until this case came on.

George Spears Millar, of the firm of Rollo and MiMar, remembered the purchasing of some old iron from Brennan, who inquired the price of scrap-iron. On July 24 he brought in 12| cwt. of one class and 8 cwt. of another, for which he was paid there and then by cheque. He said he had bought it from farmers and dairy companies round about, and gave the name of Brennan when witness was making out the cheque. Subsequently another lot had been brought in. To Mr. O’Day: There was no hesitation when accused was asked his name. His reason for asking where it came from was with a view to obtaining more, as his firm was desirous of obtaining all the scrap it Could get. To His Honour: He asked for the cheque so that he could pay for the scrapiron. To Mr. Weston: The scrap did not, all come from the one machine. There was old dairy company machinery amci g it, and some stoves.

William Everard Keating, of the foundry, gave corroborative evidence. Accused arrived in a four-wheeled trap, and stated he had already arranged the price with the firm. It consisted mainly of stove scrap and a few segments of water-wheels. That was .on a Monday, and the following Thursday accused brought another lot in. It was part of a horse-power, which w as broken into three or four parts. He identified the parts in Court as having been brought in by accused. Tg Mr. O’Day: The scrap brought in would be melted down; wheels or anything like that would not be repaired. Detective-Sergeant Cooney repeated his evidence given in the lower court concerning receiving the complaint and his discovery of the missing machinery at the foundry. He detailed his visit, in company with Constable O’Donovan, to the accused’s house, which was about six or seven miles from Grant’s place, and stated that he had informed accused as to the complaint, the discovery, and his apparent association with the missing gear. Accused had stated that he had taken the gear, which he did not think was of any use, and that a man named Ned Hayes had told him he could take it. He also produced some other parts of the gear. Accused added that he intended to see Grant at the Okato sale about the machinery. The detective-sergeant had theg told him who he was, and had put accused under arrest. To Mr. O’Day: Brennan was very frank and had readily produced the other pieces at his home.

Constable O’Donovan corroborated the evidence of Detective Cooney regarding the visit to accused’s home, and this closed the case for the Crown.

THE DEFENCE. Benjamin Gray, laborer, stated that his father had owned the place now occupied by Grant, to whom it had been sold on his father’s death. On the sale he had disposed of the chaffcutter and intermediate, but had left the horse-power on the place, as it was too cumbersome to carry about. He did not consider it of any value. The plant had not been used by anyone to his knowledge during the last 26 years, and it was second-hand when his father had bought it. He saw part of it in Brennan's cart, and recognised it as part of the plant. There was no attempt to hide it. He had known Brennan for about eight years, and, as far as he knew, he was all right. To Mr. Weston: He would not say that the horse-power was not Grant’s property. He had left it there when the place was sold. It was late in the afternoon when he met Brennan with his cart, and they had a conversation on the road. He had the old horse-power and some stoves in the wagon, which was quite open. James Smith Fox, J.P., storekeeper, of Okato, said that he had a lot of dealings with accused as a storekeeper and as a friend, and he would trust him anywhere. To Mr. Weston: Accused had told him he was picking up old iron, and had asked him for “back loads” from New Plymouth, He knew accused was buying the old iron, and he had told witness that he was getting some from Greenway, Gray and Grant. Witness understood by “getting” that accused meant “buying.” William James Gray, J.P., farmer, Okato, said that he had known Brennan since 1914, and he was a fiard-working fellow. He knew nothing against him. He had had a conversation with accused about scrap-iron, but he had not come for that which witness wished to sell. Accused understood that he would have to buy the iron. Carl Andrews, contractor, Okato, said that about 21 or 22. years ago he was ploughing for Ben Gray, senr., jand at that time the blacksmith was repairing the horse-power. Next morning it had broken again, and Mr. Zlray had stated that he would not bother with it again. As far as witness knew it had not been used since. He had known accused for about 14 years as a “decent sort of fellow.” John Leo Power, blacksmith, Okato, remembered Brennan going to Grant’s place. Accused had told him he was going there to get the old machinery. He later saw the machinery in his cart. Accused had obtained old iron from witness. To Mr. Weston: He had given old castiron to the accused. It was not worth paying for. Accused had taken a hammer from his place to break up the iron at Grant’s place. EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED. Mr. O’Day then put the accused in the, box. Accused stated that he had been in Okato for about eight years, farmiigi and sharemilking. At the present time hei was buying old and intended to reenter his farm, which he had leased, next month. Accused named the persons from whom he had obtained iron. He had been informed that the iron was on Grant’s place by a Ned Hayes, and he went down to Grant’s, to have a look at it. Some natives pointed out the place where tire iron was to him, and as he did not kno v 1 where Grant lived, nor could he see him then, he broke up the iron and put it cn his cart, in order to save himself another, trip down. He thought he would s'e,Grant during the week or at the next s?te day. He rolled a big piece on to the c it from a bank. That would be about m dday. He had not told the Maoris he v. n, going to take the iron. He called in at Power’s on his way back, and Power saw the load. He told Power he had had 3 bit of a job to get the iron on the cait.j Power knew he was going for it. He jsept the iron,at his own place that night

and brought it into town next morning. He told Millar at the foundry what his name was on the Monday when he was given a cheque. Accused related the visit of the poliqe to his house, and said that he told Detec-tive-Sergeant Cooney, when he was charged, that he had had no intention of stealing the iron. He intended to see Grant at the sale that day. He realised now that he should have seen Grant before he took the

To Mr. Weston: It was on the day after his first visit to the foundry that he went to Grant’s for the iron. Hayes had informed him of the machinery about three days before this. Hayes knew that he was collecting old iron. He did not make up his mind to collect the iron, on any particular day—it might be abodt two or three days before. It was after Hayes had told him of it, and he thought that he would collect it when he had nothing else in particular to do. He knew from what Hayes had told him that a hammer would be required. He had broken up a plough before at O’Sullivan’s place. When he saw Grant, he intended to pay him for the iron at £2 per ton. He had not bought a great deal of heavy iron. He had bought a stove from a Maori named Wario, and also another stove from O’Sullivan’s boy, together with some parts of an old plough. Accused related further purchases from a man named Roebuck and another Maori. There might be one or two other purchases. He had bought of Greenway but had not paid him. To His Honor: He had taken no steps to see Grant during the interval which had elapsed between the taking of the iron and the day of his arrest. That day was the Okato sale day, when he expected to see Grant.

Addressing the jury, Mr. O’Day said that this was a case where an innocent transaction could have a very sinister aspect. He stressed the point that accused had expected to see somebody on the place, but there was no one there, and, seeing this old iron, he thought Grant would be glad to have it off the place. It was perhaps a foolish thing to do without seeing the owner. He asked the jury not to make a criminal of accused, about whom there were such good reports. Mr. Weston did not address the jury further. HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. His Honour, addressing the jury, informed them that their duty was to determine whether this was an honest or a dishonest transaction. In any case, it was a very cool proceeding to trespass on another man’s property and smash his machinery. Stealing was accomplished wheft* a man fraudulently converted to his own use the property of another. The question was whether this young man fraudulently strove to deprive Grant of his property. The value of the machinery was only one thing, but it was neefessary because of the expression that the machinery was of no use. He charged the jury, to consider the matter very seriously, and consider whether it was consistent with honesty for a man to go into a farmer’s place when there was nobody about, take a hammer with him when he had given no hint of his coming, and break up the property. If that was consistent with honesty, well and good. His Honour drew the jury’s attention to the fact that the accused had mentioned Grant’s name in connection with those of others from whom he had bought iron. In face of the facts brought out, they had realty only one question to determine: Was it an honest transaction or was it a dishonest one? If dishonest, then they must bring in a verdict of guilty; if honest, then the accused was entitled to acquittal. THE VERDICT. The jury was out for about 45 minutes, and on their return the foreman said that they were unanimously of opinion that the accused had committed a foolish act but without criminal intent. His Honour declared this a finding of not guilty, and Brennan was acquitted.