NIPPED IN THE BUD.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 12, 14 January 1919, Page 5

NIPPED IN THE BUD.

A THEFT AND EXCHANGE SYSTEM. AMONG LADS OK THE CITY. Tire beginning of what might easily have grown to a widespread system of thoft :ind among young men employed in shops in the city, was ex- • posed by the arrest by plain-cloUies Constable Lambert, of four lads, who 1 came ibefore Mr. I. E. Wibon, S.M.. today on charges of theft and receiving. ' One lad in a hardware shop had stolen a revolver and cartridges which he had exchanged for a safety razor from a friend who worked in another hardware [ shop. This laxrer lad had stolen two

razors and a box of cartridges from hi? empkiver's shelves, and had passed on one of the razors, the cartridges, and the revolver lie got from the first-men-tioned Lid. to a Third friend who worked in a soft-goods shop, and who returned the compliment with a shirt, a tie, and a tie-pin of at-trartivp pattern at his employer's expense. A fourth lad of the coterie was not in employment during this particular period of a month passed, but he benefited by the thefts to the extent iof the revolver, which had thus passed through three hands, and a pajiama hat", which had been dishonestly obtained by his soft good? friend. The four lads were just on sixteen years of age. and the three who had dishonestly levied on their employers" goods bore excellent characters, and their respective employers were so satisfied that the thefts were but a temporary aberration not likely to recur, that they had decided to keep the boys in their situations. The other one had committed a mi? demeanour I some v<N*rs ai*o "which had resulted in his ; committaJ to an industrial school, but he had since been on probation, and behaving well, the Probation Officer reporting , that wheu in the country, away from the allurements arising out of citr companionship?, he was a good steady worker and well-conducted generally. This latter Jad was Iconvicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called on. with a condition that he should be placed at work in the conntry and subject to the Probation Officer's supervision. The other three accused were put on probation for two years, with limitations of their amnsemrnts and associates as the Probation Officer nrifrht direct, and were ordered to pay 13/6 costs apiece.