A FARMER IN TOWN.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1922, Page 8

A FARMER IN TOWN.

MEETS A POLITE STRANGER. OFFERS TO BRUSH HIS COAT. THEFT OF SETTLER’S MONEY. A story of the remarkable trust of an elderly man in a complete stranger was told at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, yesterday, when William Wilson and Anthony Kelly appeared to answer a charge of the theft from the person of William Cheffings of a pocket-book containing a cheque drawn on the Bank of New South Wales, 10 £1 war certificates, a £5 note, two single notes, and a promissory note for £l6O. They were also charged with st .-...’mg the property and receiving it, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman was on the bench, and Mr. C. H. Weston (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the case for the Crown, while Mr. L. M- Moss represented both the accused, who pleaded not guilty.

The jury empanelled was as follows: Messrs. F. E. Campbell (foreman), F. R. Bridger, B. P. Bellringer, O. Peat, A. E. R. Gilbert, E. C. Horton, A. Yo.ung, JMynott, C. R. Coleman, A. E. Wickham, G. E. Furness, and C. H. Wynyard. LOSS OF THE MONEY For the prosecution, it was stated that on Friday, August 11, Cheffings came into New Plymouth from the Egmont Road, and after tying up his horse adjourned to the Criterion Hotel for a drink, tendering a pound note from his pocket-book. Then he went to an outbuilding at the rear of the hotel, and while there the accused Wilson came out and told him that his coat was dirty and offered to brush it. Cheffings was confiding enough to allow this complete stranger to be his valet pro tern, and he took his coat off and gave it to the man to wipe, at the same time proffering the use of his red handkerchief. The job done, Cheffings donned his coat again and proceeded on his way to the Postoffice to bank the money in his pocketbook.

When he arrived at the Post-office he found that both his pocket-book and his money were gone- Quickly retracing his steps to the hotel, he met John Chas. Smith, and acquainted him with his loss. They left the hotel together and ,met another man, who told them that, he had seen the two accused hurriedly leave the hotel and walk down Brougham Street. Smith and Cheffings set off in pursuit, and eventually found their way to rhe Terminus Hotel. In the bar of the hotel that morning were a number of men, who were having a few drinks together. One of them, a man named Murray, had just ‘‘shouted ’ for the “bar,” when the two accused came in, and Wilson asked the crowd to “have one on him,” at the same time putting out a pound note} but Murray intimated that •be had just “turned it on,” and invited the strangers to join, an invitation which was accepted. Shortly afterwards Wilson and one O’Reilly, a member of the original party, adjourned to the urinal, where Wilson offered O’Reilly the cheque, saying that if he cashed it he could have the money. O’Reilly, however, considered that something was wrong and declined the offer. The two men returned to the bar, where Wilson made use of a £1 note to “shout.” The significance of that fact was that the previous evening Wilson had- asked the clerk in the hotel for the loan of sixpence in order to get down to the Breakwater, but, said Mr. Weston, he had an explanation as to how he had been able to produce the money between those times. POLICE TAKE A HAND. A few minutes later Cheffings and the police arrived in the hotel, and Cheffings identified Wilson as the man who had brushed his coat. Wilson was arrested and searched, a £5 note and some silver being discovered on him. Search was made by the police for anything left at the Teiminus Hotel, and later in the day Sergeant, Martin found in the urinal a rolled-up piece of paper, the same which was offered to O’Reilly, and which turned out to be the missing cheque. Wilson was. asked as to who his mate was, and he gave a description tallying with that of Murray. R was quite clear, however, that Murray could not have had anything to do with the matter, and, said Mr. Weston, while this was not evidence against Kelly, it was evic'.ence against Wilson, for no man with a good conscience should have reason, to conceal the identity of his mates. During the course of their enquiries, the police took W’lson out to the urinal, and, while there, Kelly had come out and had asked Wilson what was the matter- Wilson made some reply which the. police did not hear, and thereupon Kelly went away. Wilson was taken to the lock-up, while Ke!b; was seen tc go along the esplanade. A few days later a Mr. Graham found the wal let in Kawaroa Park, and some weeks later the Post-office Savings Bank book was found on the esplanade.

Kelly was also charged with the same offences, and, said Mr. Weston, the main

question undtr the circumstances was as to whether or not Kelly was Wilson’s mate To prove him guilty, it was. not the duty of the Crown to prove that he actually assisted Wilson; it was sufficient to show that he was a party to the offence. The evidence that would connect him with the offence would be that the accused were seen leaving the Criterion Hotel together ; they arrived at the Terminus Hotel together; kelly left as soon as Wilson spoke to him in the urinal; and that be was teen to be. walking in tne direction of the esplanade. There was also police evidence to the effect that he had been seen in Wilson’s company a few days before, evidence which would strengthen the case that they were mates. Evidence in support of ihe prosecution was given by Cheffings and a large number of other witnesses. AN IRISH WITNESS. Some amusement was caused by the answers of Patrick O’Reilly during the course 'of hi? evidence. After relating how WilI son had offered him a piece of paper, which he had said was a cheque for £Bl, but which witness could not actually identify as a cheque, and how he had declined the offer, O’Reiily proceeded to tell Mr. Moss that he had known Kelly for a number of years. They had been shipmates. Mr. Moss: On the day of the robbery, you and Kelly went down to the station with a bottle of whisky, didn't you? O’Reilly: A flask; yes-

Mr. Moss: And when you had drunk a good portion of the whisky, Kelly would have become confidential, wouldn’t he? No answer. Mr. Moss: And if he had been concerned in this robbery’ and he fiad become confidential, don’t you think he would have told you about it? O’Reilly: The first man he would have told would have been his old shipmate, Patrick O’Reilly. \6 I qsd about Kelly’s ccndßion that day,

O’Reily replied: “To tell you the truth, I was none too steady myself that morning/’ (Laughter.) Mr. Moss: You had a pretty good day, I think, on the day of the robbery? O’Reilly: Indeed, I did; and on the day before, too! (Laughter.) Mr. Moss: You are not too sure of the Terminus Hotel episode, are you? O’Reilly: Sure I am! If a man comes to me and offers me a cheque for £B9 or £lOO, and me, that can neither read or write, sure, and if I had taken it, I might j have got ten years myself for it! i Mr. Moss: You did not see the wallet, i about Wilson, did you? | O’Reilly: Inded, I did not.

Mr. Moss: And the only money you saw Wilson “flash round” was a £1 note?

O’Reilly: I never saw any money in his hand at all. Reverting to the matter of the flask of whisky, which he and Wilson had drunk that day, witness said to. Mr. Weston, in re-examination: “I cannot tell you where the whisky was finished. I am not a whisky-drinker. I am only a little “rooster,” and I cannot tell you where it was finished or where it was not finished. AU I know is that I w r oke up next morning in the boarding-house-” Mr. Weston: Where did you have lunch that day?

O’Reilly: Lunch ? Oh, you mean me dinner! . I don’t know. THE CHEQUE FOUND. Sergeant Martin stated that when he asked Wilson where he got the £5 note from, he replied that was all that was left of £22 he had drawn from the Public Works Department at Awakino. Asked why he had had occasion to borrow sixpence from the hotel clerk if he had that money, Wilson told him that he had left his money with a man at the Breakwater and had gone down there the previous evening to collect it. He would not give the man’s name or state where he lived, as, he stated, the man was a “bit of a bookmaker and had ‘run the cutter’ for him.” When passing the White Hart Hotel en route to the lock-up, the sergeant stated that Wilson had said: “If you let me go in here for a drink, I j*nTT you all about it.” The sergeant. -’Pve'r declined. At the lock-up Wilson n .»de a'long statement, the burden of wißc’: that he had been “off and on the ’bust” for the past couple of years. He denied any knowledge of the robbery.

No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr. Moss, addressing the jury, said that the whole of the evidence was circumstantial, arising out of Cheffings' suspicion that Wilson had taken his pocket-book. Regarding Kelly, his association with Wilson was due merely to his drinking habits. He had been following Wilson round on the chance of picking up “cheap” drinks, and that was* how he had been connected with him. His action in going up to Wilson at the Criterion Hotel was not that of a man who had taken part in a robbery. THE VERDICT. His Honor summed up briefly, and after a short retirement the jury acquitted Kelly and found Wilson guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy-

Wilson said he had never been in trouble before, but His Honor stated that while he would give effect to the jury’s recommendation, he must pass a sentence that

would show his disapproval of Wilson’s act. A sentence of nine months’ imprisonment with hard labor was imposed.