OWNERSHIP OF TOOLS

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

OWNERSHIP OF TOOLS

' CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. CHARGE OF THEFT PREFERRED. YOUNG .\IAN GUILTY. A direct conflict of evidence as to the ownership of a kit of carpenter's [tools came before Mr Justice Fair and a Jury in the Supreme Court at [Hamilton yesterday afternoon, when ]the theft of the tools. valued at £3 '25 6d. was preferred against two lyoung men, lionald Armstrong and ilioy Vincent Clarke. The charges were heard severally, and in the Dl'D‘ ’secution against Armstrong it was submitted by counsel that the gear allegedly stolen was the property of the accused and had been mistakenly identitled by its former owner. The prosecution was conducted by Mr H. T. Gillies. Armstrong was re}Drescnted by Mr H. T. .\chullin, intstructed by Mr Potter, of Rotorua. and |.\ir Roe (Rotorua) appeared for Clarke. Marks of Identification. Witness said that he could positively identity the tools. as nearly all were spotted with a peculiar shade of red lead. A trade associate of the previous witness. Cari Ericson. gave corroborative evidence and identified the tools produced in court as his property. All iroiimonger 01' Rotorua, J. Fenton ’l‘honias, recalled the sale of a drill and plane to Ericson on February 1. and slated that the tools produced were similar to those the previous witness had purchased from him. The evidence of Constable A. I). Brown. or liotorua. was read by Mr Gillies to complete the Crown’s case. lie stated that when the accused was interviewed at his work he had a kit of tools in his possession. When charged with the ottence Armstrong had stated that the tools were his own property. - ‘ Accused on». Evldonoo. 1n the witness—box Armstrong stated that he had been working as a carpenter for 11 years. obtaining constant employment over the past three years. He possessed a complete kit of tools' and aftlrmed that the tape measure produced he had purchased in 1935 in a second—hand dealer‘s shop in Auckland. He had not noticed that it was marked with any names or initials. He had bought the hammer .identitled by Crawford at Opotiki. the head being fitted with the original handle, and he had been in possession of the spirit level for about 18 months. It was possible that it might be spattered with paint as the resu.t ot’ a job he had performed in the country. One of the beveis he had secured in exchange for a wooden square, and the other had been originally owned by his father. The plum-bob he had picked up at his parents‘ homestead some two years previously. and the saw he had purchased from the Far—mers‘ Trading Company at Opotlki. The chisel had been bought in the same township about a year ago. it would have been impossible to work without these tools. Under cross-examination accused said that it would have been dimcult [to find the shop in Auckland from [which he had purchased the measur—ing tape. He denied that his statements in the Supreme Court were fabrications devised since the Lower Court hearing. Foremon'o statement. Robert James Bole. foreman joiner employed by Lee Brothers, Hotorua. stated that in January the accused had been employed by his firm for a. short period. He had left a hammer in the workshop and the tool produced in court appeared to be that owned by Armstrong. Accused did not recover the hammer from witness until late in February, and it was in witness's workshop at the time or the burglary. Mr MoMullln put in letters from hardware firms in Upotikl referring to the purchase of tools by the accused. Counsel stated that the tools allegedly stolen were of a general nature and would be found in every carpenter‘s kit. but it might ppear that the possession of a tape on which another‘s man‘s' initials were engraved was damaging evidence. It was, however, common knowledge that tools purchased second-hand bore the initials or their former owners. He submit—ted that the hammer allegedly stolen had always been the property of the accused and had been in tho possession of the witness Bole at the time of the alleged theft. The evidence also showed, counsel claimed. that the other tools had been honestly obtained by the accused, Mr Gillies referred to the repute-i hillty of the Crown witnesses, and said . that the certainty with which botht Crawford and Ericson had identified} all the articles placed a premium out ‘their evidence. There had been not Proper explanation by the accused as“ to the tape, the hammer. the kryhoie isaw, tllc bevcls or the chisel. 1

1 After 310 minutes’ retirement the ‘jury returned with a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was remanded for sentence. J