THE LATE BURGLARY AT HAMIL.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3085, 23 April 1892, Page 2

THE LATE BURGLARY AT HAMIL.

THK case for tho prosecution having been concluded on Wednesday evening, on the court ru-oponing on Thursday, Mr Hay proceeded t> review the evidence, which he which ho did at considerable length, he said the p.,lice should have dono tlimsf) in a very different manner. This was not the lir.st burglary that had been committed in Hamilton. One had occurred in Mr Divey's shop some time ago, and tnistlie police hud been unable to trace, and it seemed t> him that they had to make some show of a case in this instance, and had rightly or wrongly dropped on his client for it Had Constable Staunton <-r the police' ollicsr in charge tiken a sketch or measurement of the distance between each nail ho would not have done more than his duty, and tho court would not have had the present bald evidence placed before them. The evidence was only Wont swear that it was the same imprint, but it was very like it." With regard to the footprint*, Mr Hay quoted from Section 170 of Jnd"e Johnson's "Justices of the Peace." and also from Harrison s Hints on Advrcacy " about this class of evidence, and pointed out that the measurements of the footprint, given by Mr Taylor did no co, respond with the buot produced in court ias belonging to Neilson. Mr Hay said the facts to bo marshalled against his client were : (1) That money was lost in Hamilton ut about the time of the burglary; but this wos certainly not against Neilson. (2) Cheques were in his possession. (A) After the robbery he was in possession of £4. (4) That he had told a lie about. where he had got the money. (-">) And again, that he had said that ho might as well spend D.vey'e money on this side of the river, it had been shown by the prosecution that Neilson had received a cheque from Buxton, and that he had bsen in possession of money at the time of the burglary, and the police hai not shown that ho had no money before it The facts in his favour are, that he had money at that time, and was not known to Krone to the shop, or that he knew that the safe was in the shop or that there was money in it. Tho evidence was a I circumstantial, and if he had to defend, it would involve the defence being taken to Mrs Neilson's own house, as she is bed-ridden. Evidence would be given that TNeilson had been at home on tho Sunday evening at about 0 o'clock, and that he was in bed at halfpast seven on Monday morning and that he did not leave the house that, night. Mr Hav said thera was nothing in the evidence t /connect accused with tho burglary, and he contended that no prima facie case had been made out. The Bench retired for n\ e minutes and on resuming, tho charge against defendant was dismissed, on the grounds that the evidence did not warrant a committal.