DETENTION OF LETTER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 163, 23 April 1930, Page 4

DETENTION OF LETTER

CHARCE ACAINST YOUNG MAN. COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. In the Ashburton Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr P. Galhraith, J.P., and Mr P. Clark, J.P., Alexander Hazlett, a labourer, of Methven, cm remand, was charged with ha-ving stolen £3 from a postal packet, the property of the postmaster-General, and with having detained a postal packet intended tor a person at AYinchmoie. Accused was represented by Mr J. W. M. Dart. Senior-Sergeant 11. Martin outlined the case for the police. Ellen Grove McPae, a married woman, residing at Redcliffs (South Canterbury) said that in February last she wrote a letter to Alexander Hazlett, addressed to Christc-hurch. She enclosed three £1 notes in the letter. The letter produced was the letter she wrote. She registered it. Some time later she was notified by Hazlett that he had not received the money. She was aware that other letters she had sent to Hazlett had not been received by him. She did not know accused. ' Senior-Sergeant Martin produced a statement made by the Post Office clerk who dealt with the letter. Constable A. C. White produced a statement made by accused, showing that the letter had been re-clirectcd to him from the Post Office in Christchurch. He did not know the Alexander Hazlett for whom the money was intended, hut he knew that there was another Alexander Hazlett also receiving letters at the Christc-hurch Post Office. He had intended to forward the money to Christchurch. He had used the money, but had put the three £1 notes nojv. attached to the letter there two days before the police interviewed him. Witness added that accused had been quite open about the matter. Mr Dart submitted that there was no suggestion of thert. . Accused was living ""in the country, and as it was harvest time it was an awkward matter to have got in touch with the authorities immediately. Accused had taken one of the notes and used it, but had almost immediately afterward replaced it with another one. That could hardly he called theft. Accused had been exnecting money from home, and had held the money in question in case the other Alexander Hazlett had received his ("accused's) money. Mr Dart, in reoly to the Bench, said that accused had previously addressed a letter back to the other Hazlett when he opened an envelope and discovered the mistake. The Bench found that accused could not be convicted of theft, but there was a ease to answer on the charge of detaining the letter. Accused, pleaded guilty to this charge and was committed to the Supreme Court in Christchurch for sentence, hail being allowed, £SO in his own cognisances, and one surety oi £SO.