POLICE COURT.
Taranaki Herald, Rōrahi XL, Putanga 8977, 9 Kohitātea 1891, Page 2
Mō tēnei niupepa
POLICE COURT.
THIS DAY. I Friday, January 9.— Before T. Kiug, Esq., J.P., and R. Parris, Esq., J.P. ALLEGED STEALING FROM A WAREHOUSE. William Appleyard was charged that he did, on December 30, steal from the warehouse of Abraham Goldwater, two tinU of salmon, the value of 2s. He was charged on a second information that he did, during the month of December, steal from, the same warehouse the following articles — 2 packages of tea, 2 tins of coffee, 1 tin of baking powder, 1 tin of colonial jam, 7 tins of English jam, 1 tin of marmalade, 3 tins of pepper, 3 bottles of sauce, 1 of salad oil, 1 of hair l oil, 3 bottles of • whiskey, 1 of rum, 1 of port wine, 1 of Australian wine, 1 of sherry, 12 of ale, 1 flask of whiskey, of all of the value of £3 6s 3d. Inspector Pardy prosecuted, and Mr ' Samuel appeared for the defence. Mr Samuel pointed out that there were two charges — the former was one that came under summary procedure, and the other was indictable. He thought that in fairness to accused the Inspector might see his way clear to include in the bigger charge the two tins of salmon so as to make one charge only. The reason for this course he pointed out was this :—lf: — If accused was convicted summarily, and was committed for trial on the latter charge, it would necessarily follow that accused would be decidedly prejudiced on trial in the latter case by the conviction in the former — in fact, the trial would be only a matter of form. As the offences took place all in the one month he hoped that the Inspector would include all the goods in one charge. ' Inspector Pardy stated he saw no reason .why- the oharge could not be made one, but he desired also to add a bag of sugar to the list charged as stolen. The Bench concurred in the amendment of the charge. The accused was then charged with stealing, during the month of December, goods to the value of £3 18a 3d. On Mr Samuel's motion, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. .* ' Inspector Pardy opened the case, and then called . „ Adolphus Goldwater, who Btstted ho was in tho employ of his brother, who -was a" wine and spirit, and provision merchant. The accused was in their employ as a storeman. - From instructions he got from his -brother, he watched the accused On December 30th, -from a quarter past 8 , o'clock. He saw accused arrive at the store about twenty minutes past 8 o'clock, tinlock the front door- < and inside. ' Accused remained inside about six minutes, an i then came out, and- pulled the door to. He saw accused fix his handkerchief over something in his pocket when ho came outside. He noticed that accused's coat pockets were bulky -when he came out, and that they were different when accused went in. 1 Accused when he came out went westward down Currie-street, and witness followed him and overtook him at the National Bank corner. He touched Apployard on tho arm, and said, " What have you in your pockets ?" but accused made no reply. He asked accused to show him what he had, and accused took a tin of salmon out of two pockets. Witness asked accused what else he had, and accused handed to him a packet of lollies, which he remarked he had bought. Witness took the things and returned to tho warehouse, closed the door,, and went towards home. The accused called after him., and stopped him. Accused said, "Mr Goldwater, it'ia the first thing I have taken; I'll pay y6u for it, and say nothing about it." witness replied that he had nothing to do with it, and he would have to settle things with his brother. He took the tins of salmon home, and handed them to his 'brother. The tins (produced) wore similar to the ones' lie got from accused, and what they had in stock. When accused had the salmon in his pockets he was going in the direction of home. The packets of tea (produced) wore similar to ones they had in stock. No other shops sold the tea as far as he knew. He had never sold accused- any baking powder or tea. The baking powder with rusty tins was similar to what they had in stock." Tho seven tinß'of Pink's London jam was similar to what they had in stock, and no ' one else, as far as he knew, sold this particular brand in town. The tin 'of Phoenix jam was similar to what was in stock,' and' the same applied t-) KeillerV jam (produced). They had similar stock to the Empire pepper, the sauce, hair oil, and olive oil (produced). They Bold accused a hamper' at Christmas, and one two months before. Therewas a bottle of whisky in each'hampqr. He was sure they were labelled bottles in tha hampers. ,They only allowed • sherry and port to, go out unlabelled like tho three bottles of whisky (produced). He knew the bottle of port wine (produced), atf ho put the capsule onJ He never sold any port to accused. He identified the sherry J>y the capsule. He never sold any to accused. Witness also gave evidence respecting, a bottle of rum, bottle of Australian wine, Highland whiskey. He recognised the 12 bottles of ale as his bottling by the capsules and having no labelling. Accused got eight bottles of this ale in each hamper, but each bottle was labelled. They kept the ale in stock, and when they sola any. they labelled the bottles.- On this point he was sure.. They had similar stock to the two tins of coffee (produced.) • On taking stock of the last delivery of colonial sugar they found they were eight bags short. The bag (produced) was the same as they had in stock. Accused bought two bags of sugar,; one being booked on October 18, 1890, and- the other b«ag :he paid cash for about four or five weeks ago. No one was allowed to, fake goods out of the store except on the' authority of. himself or brother. ' By Mr Samuel r His brother did not import groceries direct from England," but bought in tho New Zealand and Australian' markets. He sells groceries retail. He had made no enquiries as to other storekeepers having the same brand of articles as produced in Court. J Accused's account in ledger commenced on page 16, February 11, 1886, continued on pages 122 and 124, and again at page 263. It was an ordiuary grocery account/ Accused- bought goods sometimes, and paid cash for them like the The Court here adjourned till 2 p.m.
