TO BE TRIED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 270, 28 August 1935, Page 6

TO BE TRIED

ALLEGED THEFT OF SUGAR COUNTY COUNCIL STORE BROKEN ACCUSED DENTES OFFENCE. In the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr A. H. Fenn, J.i\, and Mr E. C. Bathurst, J.P-, Patrick McGinn appeared, on remand, on a charge oi : having broken and entered the Ashburton County Council's store at South Street, and having stolen three bags of sugar, to a total value of £2 9s Pel.

Hie police case was conducted by Sergeant J. F. Cleary. John Gowans gave evidence of having found the warehouse door open and of having been shown a broken lock trom the door of the poison cupboard. Ihe lock had been torced open and two 701 b bags of sugar were missing. There were two keys to the premises. A new lock was placed on the poison cupboard arid when witness arrived at work the next morning he found the main door of the warehouse closed but with the lock Hanging open m the staple. When he inspected the poison cupboard he found that the lock and staple had been torn from the door and were lying on the floor. Another bag of sugar was missing. Witness knew accused who had no authority to enter the premises or remove the sugar. Accused lived in a wliare on the property adjoining the Council yards and a stile provided an easy means of access from the property to the yards. The lock on the main warehouse had been defective for some, time previous to the theft. discovery of the Theft. William John McKenzie, who mixed poison for the County Council, stated in evidence that he had received three bags of sugar and placed them in the poison cupboard. He corroborated the statements of the previous witness with regard to the finding of the broken lock on the cupboard and said he reported the theft to the Council’s engineering department. 'H!e secured the cupboard door with another lock but- tlio door was found forcea <^i-><*» again the next morning anc* another bag of sugar was missing. John Ernest Dobbin gave evidence that accused came to his nome and asked him if he wanted any sugar. Accused had had some given to him. Witness replied that he could not pay pay for it. Accused told witness to go to bis liut that evening and ho did so, seeing a 701 b hag of sugar in the hut. Accused gave him the. bag but he said he did not want all of it. Accused replied that it was too much for him. Accused' dtfd not say where he had got tho sugar but said it was given to him. Witness took the bag home, opened it and used some of the contents. Next morning lie gave some live or six pounds to his neighbour, B. L. Blackwell. That evening witness went to accused's hut to find out where the sugar came from and met accused carrying another hag under his arm. When accused was asked where he got the sugar, witness could not get a satisfactory answer. Accused said he was taking the bag to B. L. Blackwell and asked witness to carry it on his bicycle which he did. In answer to accused, witness said he met him opposite the Borough Council shingle pit. Accused was under the influence of liquor. Inquiry Regarding Sugar. Bernard Lewis Blackwell said accused called and asked witness if he wanted any sugar. Witness thought he meant money and said it was always handy. Accused said he meant a bag of sugar, and witness said he did not want it. Witness later agreed to accept it and gave accused goods equivalent to 9s for it. Witness had known accused for several years. Accused made a second call upon witness and asked him if he wanted' a second bag of sugar, which witness refused. Cross-examined by accused, witness stated that accused was under the influence of liquor when he visited witness’s home.

Sergeant Cleary stated that when he asked accused for information about the theft the latter said ho had heard about the theft hut could not help him. Accused said he only had a few pounds of sugar in the lrat because he bought it in only three or four pound lots. A search of the hut disclosed no sugar. Accused said he had been on a drinking bout at the time of the theft and had no clear recollection of anything that had happened since the previous Thursday. When arrested, accused said he had no recollection of having committed the offence. Accused had nothing to say, pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed, £”75 self and one surety of £75.