THE LATE BURGLARY AT HAMIL TON

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3084, 21 April 1892, Page 2

THE LATE BURGLARY AT HAMIL TON

AT the Police Court, Hamilton, yesterday, I before Messrs S. T. Seddon, A. Primrose ' and F. J. \jnn Stunner, J.P.s,. Duncan Neilson wis charged with breaking into the premises of Edwin Thomas Divey, situated in Victoria-strret, Hamilton, on or about the Hth inst., and stealing therefrom a safe. Mr W. M. Hay wh:> appeared for the accused, pleaded not guilty. Constable Murray, who conducted the case on behalf of the police, in his opening remarks referred to the particulars of the burglary, such as the store being found open and tho rinding of the safe, as already detailed in these columns. He then referred to the footmarks of the person wheeling the barrow on which tho safe was taken away, and said that he had boots which would be put in evidence, and which witnesses who examined the footmarks would swear would make tho marks. Accused also had spent a considerable sum of monf.y on Monday and Tuesday, 11th and 12th inst., and he was also seon with two cheques on the 11th. Cases of this kind where notes and silvor were taken were very hard to prove, as the stolen articles were not indnntifiablo, but if the cheques had been found there would be a clear case. The cheques had not been found, but he thought that from the evidenco he would bring forward that the bench would see fit to send the prisoner up for trial. E. T. Davey gave evidence as to the discovery of the burglary, and the finding of the safe later on, aiso as to the amount of money missing, £24 4s 9d, made up as follows :—Notes, £9; silver, £3 14s Gd ; and cheques, McKnight, £2 ; J. J. Graham, £1 14s Od ; \V. N. Soaiaicke, £5 and £1; and J. W. Wrigley, £1 Kis. Constablo Staunton stationed at Hamilton, depised : I know the defendaut. On the 11th. a little boy told me that a robbery had oocurred at Mr Davey's store, and that Mr Davey required the presence of a constable. I went to the shop and saw Mr Davey standing nt the shop door. (Mr Hay objected to evidence being Riven, of circumstances at which the defendant wis not present.) I examined the door of the shop, which had apparently been broken open, the box of the door into which the lock shoots when locked, was broken off. I believe it was forced open. I went round to the back of the counter with Mr Davey, who showed me where the safe was usually kept, there was no safe there then, but there was a mark from that place scored into the floor, as if some heavy article had been dragged round the back of the counter, through a opening in the counter into the shop as far as the door leading into the street. Mr Taylor then came on the scene, and we found the track of, apparently, the wheel of a wheelbarrow. I in company -vith Mr Taylor followed the mark up about GO yards, as far as Cox's corner, where we missed it for a shore distance, and then picked it up aeain about 20 or 30 yards further on, and followed it then without a break into the paddock at the back ot tho Council Chambers, where we found the wheelbarrow with a sack covered over something in it. Messrs Davey and Salmon had preceded me, and I saw one of them lift off the sack, and say "Here it is." I then found the broken safe, the contents of which were strewn about. Mr Davey identified the books as his ; he said all his money, notes and silver, was taken, and some cheques, whilst .some cheques had been left. I returned with Mr Taylor and examined tho wheel track, with a view of examining the footprints of the persons wheeling the barrow. I found several pretty clear ones; I asked Mr Taylor to get a rule, and we measured the footprints of tho person who had evidently wheeled the barrow; they measured 11 inches in length, and 3} in width. The track was rather a peculiar one, the nails in the boot had been put in very irregularly, there was a heel plate to the boot apparently, but no toe plate, the nails being carried round the toe of the boot. I described the appearance of the boot to Constable Forbes before I saw anyone. I still recollect the appearance of the print, and the impression on the blotting paper produced is very similar to that footprint. The impression measures the same as the footprint. I examined the : safe fairly minutely, and my opinion is it was oponed with a hammer, i Cross-examined by Mr Hay: It was about five minutes to eight when I i commenced the search, Mr Davey ■ being present. He did not prosecute i the search in company with me, ho ■ was not on the scent before mo. Ido not i think he was on the scent at all, Mr Davey " went on ahead with Mr Salmon. He found

the safe before I did. I did not see any foot prints about the place where the safe was found, but retraced my steps after seeing the safe, and first came upon the foot prints about Mr Cussen's gate. I did not see any foot prints before this, as the nature of the ground would preclude my doing so. I did not make a sketch at that time of the footprint, nor did I take any steps to preserve the footprints. The nature of the ground from Cussen's gate to where the safe was found was partly clay, and the latter part grass. I did not see any footprints whatever on the clay cutting. It was a right footprint I saw, the toe pointing towards the uorth. I measured that one. I found them all the same measurement— II inches by 3} inches—of course allowing for the nature of the ground. The foot print I saw first was in sandy clay. I measured several between Cussen's gate and Davey's shop. I pointed out to Mr Taylor the same day the fringe of nails on the footprint, and he also remarked it, and thought they were rivets. I should think the line of rivets was more than 2£ inches long on the footprints outside Cussen's. I cannot say that I measured the rivets on that foot, but I did on the others, which we measured in company. I will not swear that the imprints are the same as in the footprints, but to the best of my belief they are. William Taylor gave evidence corroborating that of Constable Staunton's. Constable Forbes, stationed at Hamilton: I know defendant. I remember Monday, the 11th inst, I heard of Davay's robbery and made enquiry. From information receired I arrested accused at Wednesday, lGth, at the railway station, Hamilton West. He had taken a ticket for Auckland. I brought accused to the lock-up at Hamilton. I remember going to Pearson's blacksmith shop in Hamilton East. I went there for a pair of boots which I found onder the carpenter's bench in the blacksmith's shop. This bench I have seen accused working at. The boots produced are the ones I found. I made an impression upon blotting paper marked "A." The impressions are as if a person were standing in position (right and loft). I examined | the sole of tho boots carefully, and they appeared/to have been recently worn, and had ! evidently been worn in wet weather, or else in wet grass, there being little or no rust on Cross-examined by Mr Hay :—The nails having little or no rust on them was a sign that they had been worn recently. They w:iuld show signs of rust if left for three days, but to the best of my belief they had been wont recently. I wont to Pearson's shop because of information I had received." '• Where did you get that information ? Constable Murray objected to this question, but Mr Hay said he had a right to ask it in cross-examination, and quoted from Judge Stevens. The Bench however ruled that the question was not material. Cross-examination continued : I arrested Neilson from information received and my own observations, I had no special instructions to do so, but I went to the Hamilton West station to arrest him if he left for Auckland. George Samuel Pearson deposed : 1 am a blacksmith residing at Hamilton East, and know the accused, who worked in the same shop as I do. He is a wheelwright, and has a bench and tools in the shop. The accused had access to the shop night or day. The place is not locked up at night time and any person who knew it was not fastened could get in and take any of my tools out, and if they were left back in the morniu" I would know nothing about it. I remember Monday, the 11th inst. The accused did not work in the shop that day except perhaps, for an hour in the evening. I last saw him on Monday, sometime during the aftornoon. He appeared as if he had had two or threo drinks. He told me he had been over to got a shavo in Hunilton West on Monday morning, and that he had met Mr Shepherd, who had paid him a» account. I think it was 30s. He did not say which Mr Shepherd it was. As he had often told me things when he had a glass in him, I did not take any notice. He said Shepherd was a comic singer or words to that elfect. On the loth (Wednesday), I saw Constable Forbes take a pair of boots from behind Neilsnn's bench. 1 knew the boots wore there before the constable cam?,; the boots produced are they. Tho accused sometimes put on Iheso boots when starting work, and I knew tlioy belonged to accused. • Cross-examined by Mr Hay : Accused . said that Shepherd :>c Wiia;:.whau ow-Hl him money, not a number. c£ people, t.e

may work anywhere as well as in my shop, as ho is on his own honk, 11-i i« a goal tradesman, f gave him money (10-) on the 13th, and during the month of March £1, two cheques for £2 each. We work conjointly on certain jobs, and the money for work d<inn is owing conjointly. Wo are no<»it square now. I knew he was going to Auckland ; he Wl been intending t-i go for six weeks. He earns a good deal of money. I saw him before he went over to Hamilton West, and he told mo he was g.nng In Sandes'. lam sure he said he got money from Shepherd, but he was not sober at the time. r T Re-examined by Constable Murray : 1 paid him cheques on the !)th and Kith March ; they were mv own. I don't know if they have been paid into the bank. It is about 18 months since he was working permanently in Whatawhuta. He got 10< from me on the 13th, about eight or halfpast in the morning, and said ho was going to Auckland. Jane Hickey, deposed, T am a spinster and live at the Royal Hotel, Hamilton East. On Monday 11th, I saw accused in the Royal Hotol, during the morning, and at night. I last saw him about 7 o'clock that night when he was in the bar. I was in the bar by myself. Ho was speaking to me and oiled tor some drinks. I served him two drinks for which he paid. Sometime nnTuesday evening he asked me to have a drink, but I declined. He then went into the kitchen, where I went also. He asked the stableman to have a drink and I took four drinks into the kitchen. Accused pulled a pound note out of his pocket and then a cheque which he rolled up and put back. He then pulled out some copper aud and threepenny-bits, and afterwards a bag in which he said there were sovereigns and half-sovereigns, but he put them all back again. I saw two cheques in his hand, one of which had £2 on it, aud wh»t appeared to be aG. Tho name looked like Joseph. The cheque was on the Bank of New Zealand ; the other cheque I could not see, hut it seemed to be £6, ho put it in his pocket too quicklv to see which bank it was on. He said that a man named Shepherd paid

him this money in Bright'* Hotel. Cross-examined by Mr Hay : He was not drunk on Monday, but he was on Tuesday night, whilst in the kitchen. I was there with my two sisters-Mrs Buxton and Kate Hickey. lam positive I saw 2on the cheque, and think I saw " Joseph " on the same cheque, and also two os. The " Josoph " was where the signature is usually written on a cheque. The colour of the cheque was pure white, and the printing was black. The other cheque was also white and the printed matter also black. The G looked like in black also, but I did not see 0s after the G, i.e., £G :0: 0. These were the only two cheques T saw. The colour of the cloth bag was black. I did

not see any sovereigns or half-sovereigns in it. At this time lie was drunk. He was t ilking all the time, in a drunken kind of way. Did not think it was worth while paying attention to what a drunken man was saying. Mr Shepherd, farmer, residing at Whatawhata, deposed : I know Neilson, and oa Monday 11th inst., I was in Hamilton before the Te Aroha mail came in. I met accused on the bridge, and I was speaking to him about the burglary, but I don't remember what ho said. I paid him no money on that day, and I owe him nothing. I never paid him money. The accused did not mention money matters to me. I have taken part in comic concerts. Thomas Buxton deposed : I am licensee of the Royal Hotel, Hamilton. On Monday, 11th and Tuesday, 12th, I saw accused in the house at intervals. He spent about £3 and changed four pound notes. On Uth accused, my wife, myself, my sister-in-law, and some one else were at dinner and he called for drinks for us all, saying jokingly, that we might just as well'spond Davey's money over in Hamilton East. Accused was about half drunk at this time. Cross-examined by Mr Hay: Neilson gets on the spree occasionally and spends his money freely then. I have known him to spend the same amount of money on previous occasions, and ha has changed as many notes. He paid me £3 in October he owed me, with notes, and then he had othpr money. Every one was talking about the robbery. I had some conversation with Neilson about the robbery prior to dinner. My impression was that his mentioning D.ivey's money was only a joke. I didn't see any cheques with him. He was very muddled on Tuesday. Had he pulled any cheques out of his Docket on Tuesday I would have seen them. T gave accused a cheque for 14s of C. A. Davis, but I got the cheque back again. The £3 paid in October cleared his account then. . To the Bench: The cheque was only in accused's possession for about 10 minutes.

This jlnsed the case for the prosecution. As Mr Hay said that his address would would be of considerable? length, the Court was adjourned until half-past ten this moraine;. The accused was admitted to bail, the sureties being, himself for £100, and two bondsmen for £100 each.