Today was the fifth day of the trial in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Wells, of two Melbourne business men on charges of stealing.
The Crown case was still unfinished when the Court adjourned at lunch today, and the trial, which commenced on Monday, is expected to continue well into next week.
Donald Speed, managing director of Autoterms, Ltd., Melbourne, and Allan Leslie Penrose, Gardenvale Rd., Caulfield, accountant, are charged that they did, at Darwin on th 17th October, 1947, steal a quantity of radio and other valves, the property of the Commonwealth; alternatively that they received the valves knowing them to be stolen.
The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. H. G. Alderman K.C., was assisted by Mr. C. A. Sandery and Mr. J.R. Kerr. For Speed, Mr. R. V. Monahan K.C., was assisted by Mr. C. A. Sweeney, and Penrose was represented by Mr. J. Starke.
Evidence was given yesterday by John William Digby, of Brunswick, Victoria, who stated that at the time of the sale he was an L.A.C. in the R.A.A.F., and was in the shed at the time ot the deliveries for the purpose of assisting in loading the goods on motor trucks.
After delivery of goods they had purchased had been given to the representative of the two defendants, the witness saw Speed occupied for some fifteen or twenty minutes shifting goods from on and under the tables and piling them in the aisle. Witness was then asked by Speed to move the goods from the aisle onto his (Speed's) motor trucks.
Digby said that the pile built up by Speed in the aisle was about thirty feet long, three feet high and, depending on the nature of the goods, from one to two feet through. The goods in the pile were in packages similar to those produced in the court, and the witness selected one package from these exhibits which, he said, was exactly the same as one he had taken to the motor lorry.
The witness saw Penrose put a few single packages of valves from the tables into the aisle.
Cross-examined by Mr. Monahan, Digby admitted that while watching Speed in the aisle, he was sitting on a hand truck doing nothing, and "being a bit lazy."
He also admitted to Mr. Monahan that there were discrepancies between marks which he had placed on a plan of the shed in the lower court to indicate the relative positions of himself and Speed, and marks which he had made on a plan at the present hearing. He attributed this to the plan in the lower court being confusing, and to the fact that he needed glasses which he had not had in the lower court.
He agreed that he had said in the Police Court, when referring to the Monday following the sale, "Perhaps I thought I had had a swifty put over me. I believed then that Speed was the thief of the valves."
During cross-examination, the witness was removed from earshot of the Court for a short time at the request of Mr. Alderman, while an objection by Mr. Alderman to the line of questioning by Mr. Monahan was discussed.
In reply to Mr. Starke, Digby said that he had heard Penrose call to Grant in an interrogative voice. He had seen Penrose handle packages only one at a time, and had only had Penrose under observation for a few seconds, "only a glance."
Campbell Hutchison Christie, of Commonwealth Disposals Commission, Darwin, stated in evidence that before the sale he had checked the goods at Winnellie with the draft catalogue, and that as a result, the catalogue was subsequently corrected.
(Proceedng).
Mr. Justice Wells on Monday dismissed an objection on behalf of Donald Speed and Allen Leslie Penrose that he could not try charges against them without a jury.
Counsel for the defence raised objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, and claimed a trial by jury on the grounds that the Ordinance which abolished trial by jury in the Northern Territory applied only to offences created by statute and not to common larceny.
Donald Speed, managing director ot Autoterms, Ltd., Melbourne, and Allan Leslie Penrose, Gardenvale Rd., Caulfield, accountant, are charged that they did, at Darwin on the 17th October, 1947, steal a quantity of radio and other valves, the property of the Commonwealth; alternatively that they received the valves knowing them to be stolen.
Speed and Penrose had been committed for trial at the Darwin Police Court on 27th February by Magistrate Crang.
An array of legal luminaries rare in Darwin's history occupied the counsel table.
The Crown Prosecutor, Mr H. G. Alderman K.C., was assisted by Mr. C A. Sandery (both of Adelaide) and Mr. R. Kerr of the Sydney bar. For Speed, Mr. R. V. Monahan K.C., was assisted by Mr. C. A Sweeney, and Penrose was represented by Mr. J. Starke.
In opening the case for the Crown. Mr. Alderman said that the charges related to about 6,000 valves which had been found to be missing from a shed known as SW1, where a sale of RAAF property had been conducted last October by the Commonwealth Disposals Commission.
He said that at 1.30 p.m. on 17th October, the valves were in their place in the sheds, but by five o'clock the same evening, these 6,000 valves and another 6,000 which had been purchased by the defendants had been found, partly at Vestey's buildings divided into two lots, and partly at Guinea Airways' freight office, already parcelled up and addressed to Speed in Melbourne.
Evidence would be called to show that Speed and Penrose had agreed between themselves not to compete against each other in the bidding at the sale, but that Penrose would bid on behalf of them both and the purchases would be divide afterwards.
Evidence would show that delivery of the valves purchased by Speed and Penrose, numbering approximately 6,000 had been given to one Grant, an employee of the Waltham Trading Company, Penrose's firm.
It would also be shown that about the same time, both defendants were in the same shed, and, although they had no right to touch any valves, had been seen by RAAF personnel to handle cartons o valves.
L.A.C. Digby would give evidence to show that on Speed's instructions he had built up a pile of valves in the delivery aisle, and that these valves were loaded on to the same trucks used to remove the valves bought by the defendants, and were then taken away.
Mr. Alderman stated that it was scarcely conceivable that anyone other than the defendants should steal the valves and show such discernment as not to take any belonging to Speed or Penrose.
The valves which formed the subject of the charge completely filled the jury-box in the Courtroom, and Mr. Alderman continued that it was scarcely likely that, after the delivery of all the valves to Vestey's, the defendants did not realise that they had not only about twice the number of valves which they should have had, but that the goods also occupied twice the cubic content.
When questioned in Melbourne some time later by Detective O'Connor, continued Mr. Alderman, Speed had denied having touched any valve on this occasion, and Penrose had stated that he had only temporarily handled a transmitter and one valve. This would be shown to be in conflict with evidence to be given by three RAAF personnel.
The first witness for the Crown was Allan Elliott Yelland, auctioneer, of Messrs. Coles Bros., Adelaide, who conducted the sale for the Commonwealth Disposals Commission. Yelland gave evidence regarding the marking of lots and listing them in catalogues, and replying to Mr. Kerr, said that in addition he made a check of lots sold, lots passed in, prices obtained, and supervised the deliveries.
Cross-examined by Mr Monahan, the witness stated that in checking lots at the sales, he would not count the actual number of valves in each layer in the boxes of valves. He would count only the top layer and reckon from that. He admitted that sometimes only one or two sample boxes of a lot would be on the table and the bulk underneath, where it could occur that one lot would overlap another. He did not check all types of valves in each lot, but relied on RAAF and Disposals personnel to some extent.
Yelland admitted to Mr Monahan that the practice of admitting only one truck at a time to the shed during deliveries had been relaxed on this occasion, and he had allowed three trucks to enter This had been done because he had extra staff.
Witness stated that on the day after the sale, RAAF personnel had taken it upon themselves to commence giving deliveries before any representative of the auctioneer was present.
Although the conditions of sale specified cash or a bank cheque prior to delivery, Yelland said that cheques from Autoterms, Ltd., Speed's firm, had been accepted and delivery effected.
Questioned further by Mr. Monahan regarding the sale of "kit spares", Yelland agreed that at one stage the sale of these items was stopped by the Disposals Commission, but he denied any knowledge as to whether the reason was that these kits contained valves upon which the duty had not yet been decided.
He said that Speed had previously bought some of these "kit spares."
Replying to Mr. Starke, the witness agreed that neither in the catalogue nor anywhere else had the possibility of duty being payable on some of the lots been mentioned. The first word of this was only a few days before the sale, but this was not the responsibility of his firm.
In re-examination by Mr Alderman, Yelland stated that, when lots were sold at "per each," as was sometimes the case, no check of quantity was previously made by the auctioneer. There had been no disputes about sales.
Eoin Douglas Grant, radio engineer, employed by the Waltham Trading Company, was the next witness for the crown. He stated that, on 17th October, he had accepted delivery from L.A.C. Howard, of the RAAF, of all lots purchased by Speed and Penrose in shed SW1. All the deliveries were properly made, lots were checked against sales dockets, and there were no shortages.
The valves were taken from SW1 to Vestey's, where he and a man named Clements, who was in Speed's employ, had under the eyes of both defendants, divided all the valves into roughly equal portions. Most of Speed's portion was removed the same evening, but he could not be sure whether the whole of it was removed on that evening.
John Gerald Howard, a RAAF L.A.C., supported the statements of the previous witness regarding the making of deliveries and their correctness. He stated that on one occasion only during these deliveries - and that with only a "glancing look" - he had seen both Speed and Penrose separately handling valves. He could not say, however, what types they were, or whether they had been purchased by defendants or not.
Questioned by Mr. Monahan, witness gave as his opinion that there was considerable confusion in the shed during delivery, and that this may have been caused by the presence of four or five trucks in the shed at once, instead of the customary one.
(Proceeding).
Source: Trove Northern Standard (Darwin, NT : 1921 - 1955) Friday 11 June 1948 Page 1
Source: Trove Northern Standard (Darwin, NT : 1921 - 1955) Friday 11 June 1948 Page 16
Source: Trove Northern Standard (Darwin, NT : 1921 - 1955) Friday 11 June 1948 Page 3