CASE COLLAPSES

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 18898, 29 May 1936, Page 8

CASE COLLAPSES

THEFT CHARGE FAILS. IDENTIFICATION OF TOOLS. _- l i DIRECTqu FROM JUDLIL. ‘ i Acting on the direction of His Hon- . 0115 Mr Justice Fair who, without hearing the defence, observed that the Crown had not adequately carried out the onus al‘ proof, a jury in the :‘u—preme Llourt at Hamilton to—day acquitted Roy Vincent Clarke, aged 23, carpenter, ot‘ liolorua, of a charge of stealing tools valued at £5 'ls 0d at lioiorua on February 10. Similar evidence to that adduced yesterday in the prosecution of a young man, Donald Armstrong, who was charged severally with the offence was tendered by the Crown. The prosecution was conducted by .\h- 11. ‘l‘. Gillies. and Mr hoe tllolorua; appeared tor the accused, who entered a plea of not guilly. Evidence was given on similar lines to yesterday‘s hearing, by Archibald Charles Crawford, carpenter, ol‘ lto—torua. who, under crew's-examination, stated that ol' the 13 tools which had be'en stolen l'rom him only a screwdriver and a bevel blade, which he identified as his property, had been found in The accused's possession. He was convinced that these tools were his own and were among the hit that had been removed. it was also stated by Carl Martin Edward Erieson that only a. small portion of his tools had been found in the accused‘s possession. lie had purchased the smoothing plane produced only ten days before it. was va'tolen, while the jack plane and the automatic drill had also been in use for only a short time. Evidence was read by Mr Gillies re—garding the purchase or the tools produced by the previous witnesses. A Fragment-w can. Detective-Sergeant J. Thompson stated that. when interviewed, the accused had maintained that the tools were his own property and had given details of their purchase. He could not remember the shop from where he had bought the new tools and failed to recollect how he had come by the others, which he said had been in his kit; for some time. ~ Directing the Jury to return a ver—dict of not guilty, His Honour re—ferred to the uncertainty with which the witness Ericson had identified the tools and had admitted that he might have been mistaken. The whole case for the prosecution was built up on their identification and Ericson agreed that they would be found in almost every carpenter's kit. “ The case is very fragmentary and although there ‘is suflicient evidence to cast. a suspicion upon the accused it does not appear adequate to put before the Jury to satisfy them beyond doubt that the tools were not his own property,“ added His Honour. The accused was acquitted and discharged.