MARKED SIXPENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 257, 31 October 1933, Page 9

MARKED SIXPENCE.

THEFT CHARGE DISMISSED. OTAHUHU WORKSHOPS CASE. "The email amount involved and the dire consequences to this man if he is convicted makes it difficult to deal with him"" said Mr. F. 11. Levien, S.M., in the Otahuhu Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Arnold T. Thomson was charged with stealing sixpence, the property of John Francis Aickin. Aickin said in evidence that he was a etoreman employed by the Railway Department at Otahuhu stores. During the last six months he had been missing money from his coat pocket. He had put a marked coin in his pocket on September 27, and that day 1/6 was stolen. On the day in question, accused came up to him and offered to purchase a concession railway ticket for him and he gave him 1/. Accused gave him back a sixpence. He found it was the one he had marked. On October 2 he marked several coins and put them in hie coat pocket. He missed a sixpence. He informed the foreman Brown, and was later called into the district office to identify the coin. ■ Cross-examined by Mr. Singer, who appeared for accused, witness said all sorts of people had access to the room. No action had been taken against Thomson on September 27, as the coin was too faintly marked. He did Hot mention to Thomson that he had given him this marked coin. Mr. Singer: Why did you continue to keep money in your overcoat pocket when you had been losing it over a period of six months? Witness: I'always keep my money in by coat pocket, perhaps as the result of a bad habit. David C. Powell, etoreman, and M. Brown, stores foreman in the workshops, and Lawrence W. Hawkins, district railway storekeeper, gave evidence. Mr. Singer said accused could only give a straight out denial of the charge. The prosecution was asking the court to believe that because aecitsed had marked coins on him he must be a thief. He was a man of good character and with 14 years' service in the Railway Department he had not a black mark against him. There was a distinct possibility of soiuo one putting the money in his pocket. It was known all over the works that Aickin was putting marked coins into his pocket to catch a thief, and accused would not risk his job and his superannuation for sixpence. Mrs. Levien said it was difficult to understand the mentality of a man who would take a miserable few pence from a mate's pocket. He could not believe that anyone would put the coins in accused's pocket, knowing them •to • be marked. There was little direct evidence; against accused, and he would dismiss the charge under section 92 of the Justice of the Peace Act,- on condition that accused paid 40/ and costs 16/. ; ' .