NOT PAWNABLE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 253, 24 October 1919, Page 5

NOT PAWNABLE.

REPATRIATION BOARD PROPERTY. WARNING TO SOLDIERS. A Rarotongan named Harry Kelly, a returned soldier, was brought before.Mr. J. E. Wilson. S.M., to-day, at the instance of the Auckland* Repatriation Board on a charge that he had pawned, without authority a fishing net which had been purchased for him by ihp Repatriation Board by way of financial assistance. Mr Sclwyn Mays, for the Department, stated that the prosecution was brouprht under the regulations of the Repatriation Act, and was instituted as a warning to returned soldiers that they could not dispose of chattels bought for their use by the Repatriation •Board, unless with the written consent of the Board or of the repatriation officer. The accused Kelly and another returned soldier, who was a native, had been supplied by the Repatriation Board with a launch bought for them at a cost of C 245. and with fishing nets and gear valued at £55. Until the prchase of that gear for them they received as assistance abo<tt £2 10/ per week. The nets were delivered to Kelly on September 29. when he signed for them. He took them lo his boat, and next day he called on a pawnbroker and wanted to sell the net to him. Tlie pawnbroker declined to buy. but offered to lend £G on tho net, and this offer was accepted. Subsequently Kelly's mate went to the repatriation -officer with the pawn ticket, and the present action was taken as a warning to returned soldiers. A penalty was not pressed for. Mr. Rennie, for the defendant, said that Kelly was a Rarotongan, and he honestly did not know lie was doing wrong. He only thought lie was liable for the money spent on the net. Both he and his mate wanted money at the time for food, and pledged the net. They later went to redeem the net, but the pawnbroker refused to return it until the Repatriation officer was notified, and Kelly's mate went then to the Repatriation officer, who kept the ticket. Mr. Mays stated that the full effect of dealing in any way with the launch or gear without written nermisßion had been fully explained to both Kelly and his mate. • His Worship stated that as the case was brought merely as a warning, lie would not inflict any penalrv other than order the payment of £3 and 1/ costs, and ordering defendant to redeem the net forthwith.