[receiving stolen goods]

R. v. Martin (No. 2)

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Montagu J., 2 September 1840

Source: Tasmanian, 11 September 1840

            George Martin was charged with feloniously receiving, on the 20th of May last, one blanket, valued at 10s., and a rug, valued at 5s., the property of G. L. Proctor, of the Back River, New Norfolk.

            The prosecutor, who is a sawyer, stated, that while he was at work on the day mentioned, his hut was broken into, and robbed. Search being made, the blanket and rug were found in the possession of the prisoner, who is a shoemaker.

            A witness, who gave his testimony with very particular minuteness, stated, that he was in Proctor’s house on the 20th of May, and through a crack in the door, he saw the prisoner receive a bundle from another man, and give him a dollar for it; this was in the evening, and although Martin’s house is more than a hundred yards from Proctor’s, the witness saw this very distinctly. This witness, who was examined at some length by the Solicitor-General, told one of the prettiest tales imaginable.

            Mr. Ross, for the defence, contended, that in order to establish the guilt of the prisoner, it was necessary to be convinced of three points: 1st; were the articles now produced the identical property sworn to by Proctor; 2nd, were they stolen; 3rd, did the prisoner know that they were stolen. A looser case the learned counsel had scarcely ever known, for the prosecutor could not even identify the articles; and as to the stealing, there was no proof beyond the prosecutor’s own statement, that his hut was broken into, and none, either, that the prisoner had anything to do with such transaction, even if it had taken place. The learned counsel animadverted severely on the evidence of the last-mentioned witness, whose testimony was clearly a fiction throughout; and he concluded a very able address by claiming an acquittal.

His Honor briefly summed up, and paid Mr. Ross a well-merited compliment for the ingenuity and skill he had displayed for the defence. With regard to the statement of the last witness, His Honor had always observed, that the testimony of interested witnesses was very prettily garnished with a variety of minute circumstances, which, in his mind, invariably created a doubt. His Honor said that as the Solicitor-General was not present (the learned gentleman had retired immediately on concluding the case) he presumed he did not wish to reply; he should, therefore, leave it to the Jury to deal with the case as they thought proper.

The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

His Honor, however, ordered the prisoner to be remanded, but a short time afterwards he was discharged.