THEFT OF BATTERIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 208, 3 September 1929, Page 5

THEFT OF BATTERIES.

SALESMAN SENT TO GAOL. DISCOUNT TO "THE TRADE" COMMENT BY THE JUDGE. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. Described as a Lattery salesman, Harold Tliomas Watson, aged 34, appeared in the Supreme Court to-day for trial on two charges of alleged tlieft of batteries, the property of" the Electric Construction Company. One battery was valued at £7, and the other at £4. He was also charged that on May 3, 1929, with intent to defraud, he made a false entry on a duplicate docket, so as to show the sale of a lamp at 2/0, whereas he sold a- battery valued at £4 14/0.

The Crown Prosecutor said Watson had been employed as head battery salesman at the company's Hamilton branch for about 15 'months. He left the company's employ last May, and later it was discovered that batteries to the value of £49 12/ had not been accounted for. On May 3 Watson sold a battery to one Waters.

Counsel mentioned that members of the motor trade got a substantial discount on batteries.

Watson approached one Stanley Paul, a garage proprietor, and told him he had a friend who wanted a battery, and he (Watson) was anxious to get it for him at the trade discount. Paul agreed to put the order through his firm, and this was done. The trade price of the battery was £4 14/6. Watson apparently did not insert the carbon pajier in making out the docket, but subsequently, on a counterfoil, he entered up the sale of a. lamp for 2/0. He thus put £4 12/ in his pocket. On another occasion Watson sold a man named Laxon a battery for £2 10/. Later on, apparently discovering that the company had learned of the Laxon deal, Watson substituted another battery without Laxon's knowledge. Counsel asserted that after the matter had been placed in the hands of the police Watson rang up three Crown witnesses and tried to subvert their evidence. Details of trade discounts on batteries, ranging from 25 to 35 per cent, led Mr. Justice Ostler to remark that there must be some profits on batteries, but the poor motorists did not share in the benefits. (Laughter.) The jury returned a verdict of guilty with a strong recommendation to mercy. His Honor said that in June, 1927, prisoner was found guilty of theft and was placed on probation for three years. He was then treated lightly. Six months later it was disclosed that he had committed four other thefts. Extraordinary leniency was then given, for he was again placed on probation for three years. Now while still on probation and when occupying a position of trust he again committed theft. His Honor said he did not like sentencing prisoners and he always liked to carry out the recommendation of a jury, but it would be making the criminal law a farce if he acceded to counsel's request and again admitted prisoner to probation.

Accused was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.