Before the Chief Justice (Sir John Dodds, K.C.M.G.).
John Ward, wharf labourer, was indicted on four counts of having stolen, or, in the alternative, received, a case of over 100 dozen shell necklets, the property of Huddart, Parker, and Co., of the value of £71. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr.Harold Crisp, the Solicitor-General (Mr. E. D. Dobbie) prosecuting for the Crown.
Jury-Messrs. Joseph Wignall (foreman). Thomas Andrews, Henry Pocock, Charles Hickman Albert Nichols, Albert Garth, Joseph Scott, John Smith, M. Anderson, James Billinghurst, and
A. W. Taylor, W Johnston.
The Solicitor-General said the goods were stolen from the custody of Messrs. Huddart, Parker, and Co. for shipment to Sydney, and the prisoner was indicted under different counts as a matter of precaution of having stolen the shells, the property of Mr. C. Paget, or of Huddart, Parker, and Co., and also with receiving the shells, well knowing tho same to have been stolen. The prisoner's conduct, and what he said to the police, counsel submitted, amounted to a confession of guilt, and Mr. Paget would swear that they were the shells he had consigned to Sydney, and never got there. That position called upon the prisoner to account for the possession of the goods.
The evidence recently published was repeated, and amounted to this: That the prisoner told a young man in a business place in town that he had some shells to sell for a friend, and induced him to dispose of some of them for him on commission, The young man had his suspicions aroused, and gave information to the police, and then a quantity of shells were found in prisoner's possession, some of which were concealed in his bedroom. Prisoner persisted that he came by the shells in an innocent manner as agent for a Mr. Fisher, of Recherche.
Mr. Crisp did not call evidence, but submitted to His Honor that there was no guilty knowledge established-merely possession of the goods, assuming they were identified.
The Solicitor-General: There is more than more possession of the stolen property. The man did not tell the truth.
His Honor hold there was a case to go to the jury.
Mr. Crisp urged tho jury that there was no guilty knowledge established. The shells, he contended, were not satisfactorily identified as Mr. Pagct's shells.
His Honor told the jury that, in order to convict the prisoner, they must first be of opinion that the shells were stolon, and that either he was the person who stole them, or received them, well knowing the same to have been stolen. There was nothing against the man before. He had had a clean record.
From the circumstances they might assume that the case of shell necklets was stolen from the wharf. It was proved that the prisoner tried to surreptitiously dispose of the shells, and to sell them at prices far below the ordinary market value, and he failed to account for how he became possessed of them.
Further, there was concealment. When some of the shells were found under his bed he told the police they need not search further, as he would tell them where the rest of the shells were. Mr. Crisp had very ingeniously addressed the jury in defence, but if there was a man named Fisher at Researche who sent the prisoner the shells, as he had stated, that man would undoubtedly have been called; but he had not been called.
The jury, after some hours' deliberation, failed to agree, and were discharged, the accused being remanded till next session, but admitted to bail.
Jury-Messrs. Joseph Wignall (foreman). Thomas Andrews, Henry Pocock, Charles Hickman Albert Nichols, Albert Garth, Joseph Scott, John Smith, M. Anderson, James Billinghurst, and
A. W. Taylor, W Johnston.
The Solicitor-General said the goods were stolen from the custody of Messrs. Huddart, Parker, and Co. for shipment to Sydney, and the prisoner was indicted under different counts as a matter of precaution of having stolen the shells, the property of Mr. C. Paget, or of Huddart, Parker, and Co., and also with receiving the shells, well knowing tho same to have been stolen. The prisoner's conduct, and what he said to the police, counsel submitted, amounted to a confession of guilt, and Mr. Paget would swear that they were the shells he had consigned to Sydney, and never got there. That position called upon the prisoner to account for the possession of the goods.
The evidence recently published was repeated, and amounted to this: That the prisoner told a young man in a business place in town that he had some shells to sell for a friend, and induced him to dispose of some of them for him on commission, The young man had his suspicions aroused, and gave information to the police, and then a quantity of shells were found in prisoner's possession, some of which were concealed in his bedroom. Prisoner persisted that he came by the shells in an innocent manner as agent for a Mr. Fisher, of Recherche.
Mr. Crisp did not call evidence, but submitted to His Honor that there was no guilty knowledge established-merely possession of the goods, assuming they were identified.
The Solicitor-General: There is more than more possession of the stolen property. The man did not tell the truth.
His Honor hold there was a case to go to the jury.
Mr. Crisp urged tho jury that there was no guilty knowledge established. The shells, he contended, were not satisfactorily identified as Mr. Pagct's shells.
His Honor told the jury that, in order to convict the prisoner, they must first be of opinion that the shells were stolon, and that either he was the person who stole them, or received them, well knowing the same to have been stolen. There was nothing against the man before. He had had a clean record.
From the circumstances they might assume that the case of shell necklets was stolen from the wharf. It was proved that the prisoner tried to surreptitiously dispose of the shells, and to sell them at prices far below the ordinary market value, and he failed to account for how he became possessed of them.
Further, there was concealment. When some of the shells were found under his bed he told the police they need not search further, as he would tell them where the rest of the shells were. Mr. Crisp had very ingeniously addressed the jury in defence, but if there was a man named Fisher at Researche who sent the prisoner the shells, as he had stated, that man would undoubtedly have been called; but he had not been called.
The jury, after some hours' deliberation, failed to agree, and were discharged, the accused being remanded till next session, but admitted to bail.
No comments:
Post a Comment