MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 186, 11 September 1914, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two male first offenders for drunkenness were fined 5/-, with the usual option. NO LIGHT. Leonard Mitchell, for cycling without lights, was fined 10/- and costs. FAILING TO NOTIFY. The North Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (Mr Neave) proceeded against Charles Talbot for failing to notify an infectious disease, scarletina. Talbot admitted the breach, and was convicted and ordered to pay costs amounting to £2 17/-. Henry S. Williams (Mr Weston) prosecuted John Muir (Mr Donnelly) for the theft of an overcoat, valued at 39/6, the property of Butterworth Bros., tof Christchurch. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Weston explained that defendant was a salesman in Butterworth Bros., at Christchurch. A friend had asked him to supply him with a coat, which defendant had agreed to do. The coat submitted had been taken away, and Muir had made an entry in, the book, charging the cost of the coat to Ross and Glendinning. Soon afterwards he erased the entry, and wrote another over it that he should not have put in that book at all. Next day Muir's friend said the coat would do, and payment was made. The manager had afterwards noticed the erasure, and referred the matter to Muir, who, after some pressing, had made a clean breast of it. Henry S. Williams, manager of Butterworth Bros.;' at Christchurch, said that on the evening of August 13 he noticed the erasure in the order book. He made investigation, and discovered that the coat was missing. He asked Muir about the occurrence, and he eventually confessed-that he had stolen the coat in order to sell it and pay an account which he owed for cigarettes, as the party from whom he had bought them was pressing for money. The coat had since been paid for. Cross-examined by Mr Donnelly, witness stated that defendant was getting £1 a week. He had a house account with the firm, which was in such a bad state that witness had been forced to stop his credit. Mr Donnelly: Do you'think it is a very creditable thing that Butterworth Bros, should bring a charge of theft against this lad, after having given a receipt for the overcoat as a cash sale? Clarence Barton Lye, an employee of Butterworth Bros., stated that he had examined the order book, and identified the writing as that of Muir. Muir had no right to send out the overcoat on approval except through the office. Stanley Thomas, a salesman at Ross and Gleiidinning's, gave evidence as to his having asked. Muir if he could supply him with a coat. He had taken it home, and agreed to pay on the following day. The coat had been for his father. It hg,d. suited his father, and on the following day he had paid £2 for the coat, on the understanding that he would get 5/- change. ■ Mr Donnelly, in addressing the Bench, expressed the hope that a broad view would be taken of the matter. The young fellow should not be convicted of theft. Evidently there had been dealings with Butterworth Bros, and the lad. Whatever were the exact transactions in regard to, this coat, it had been paid for the next morning, and been treated as a cash transaction. There was no reason to suppose that he: intended to steal the coat. " Having treated the sale as a cash transaction and received money for it," he continued, "I have never seen in all my experience such a vindictive proceeding. They took the money and now they come into Couxt and ask the Magistrate to convict the lad of a criminal offence. This is a harsh thing to do, and they try to skin him upon some statement made to the manager afterwards. It is one of the most°heartless and vindictive actions that I have ever known. They might have let him go when they sacked him, but they seem to have wished to pursue him to the very end. They paid him the miserable salary o'f £1 a week, and I suppose he had to live on it somehow, and then ask you to put a record against him." To Mr Weston: At this stage in the proceedings you might show a little mercy and consideration and withdraw the information. Mr Weston: We are only acting on instructions from the head office, and can do nothing but ask for leniency. Mr Bailey decided to dismiss the information, saying that it was the boy's first offence. He was qurfcfe a youth and he did not wish to start him •in life with a conviction.