THEFT OF POULTRY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 213, 6 September 1916, Page 6

THEFT OF POULTRY.

m ; fletcher foujjd guilty. At the Onehunga Police Court yester- ' day .afternoon Luke Fletcher, a native of Onehunga, pleaded "sSot guilty" when charged before Mr F. V. Frazer. S.M., , with stealing six lots of fowk, made up ac follow:—Lot 1: One rooster and four, hens, valued at £4 14/0, from Cicorgo W. Peters. Lot 2: Four fowl 3, valued at fl, from Hop Lee, a Chinaman. Ivot 3: Three fowls, valued at 7/6, from Albert Dongworth. Lot 4: Seven fowls, valued at £3 5/. from Charles Edward Rae. Lot 5: Two fowls, ralued at £3 i 3/, from Herbert K. Welham. lot 6: Five fowls, valued at £1 5/, from Edith .E. HawJceswood. Sergeant M. Bogera ■ prosecuted, and ilr Alan Moody appeared for the defendant. The first case was taken separately, and all the others were heard together— that ie, the evidence for the prosecution ' was taken in each case before the defence was heard. Reviewing the evidence in the first case (lot Xo. 1). Mr Frazer said it turned almost entirely on identification by description marks. Defendant said he had bought a rooster from a Mangere dairyman about five weeks ago. Tha latter had confirmed this statement, but could not identify the bir.l produced as ■ the one he had 'sold to Fietcher. The defendant claimed to have reared the , j hene himself. It was not a question oE j identification only, but this—which was the moet likely story. Defendant's , story had not been supported by the ex- , i perts examined, and he (Mr Frazer) ' I could see no reason for doubting the ( evidence of identification given for the I prosecution. The defendant must be ' j convicted. With regard to Dongworth's • and Hawkeswood's cases, he was not " I quite satisfied that the evidence of •; identification was strong enough to convict on. In the other cases the accused had put up an impudent defence, and " had brazened the whole thing out, whereas it would have not been so bad > had he pleaded guilty. He disliked the ' idea of sending a young man to gaol for a first offence, but he intended to inflict f a very heavy penalty. lie would fine t Fletcher £5 on each of the four r charges on which he had been convicted, and £2 S/ witnesses' expenses. He also f ordered the fowls to be restored to their - owners, and defendant to pay £5 17/6 1 as value for the fowls not recovered—a F total of £28 5/6: £5 to be paid immediately, £10 at the end of one month, I and the 'balance to be paid at the end f of two months. r J 1