BEFORE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 124, 27 May 1936, Page 8

BEFORE COURT.

J. W. S. McARTHUR. THREE MORE CHARGES FURTHER REMAND GRANTED. VARIATION OF CONDITIONS. i , , (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. For the second time since his return from Australia under an extradition order, a month ago, John William Shaw McArthur appeared in the Magistrate's Court in Wellington to-day. In addition to the four charges on which he appeared originally and was remanded for a month on bail three others alleging theft of. moneys were made against McArthur to-day. A further remand of a month was sought and granted, and bail was renewed. An application by counsel for the waiving- of bail on • condition that' McArthur reported to the police either in Wellington or Auckland twice cacli week was not granted by the magistrate, Mr. E. D. but his Worship varied the condition to the extent that McArthur, in addition to reporting either in Wellington or Auckland may also report in Christcliurch or Duncdin. McArthur was further charged with the following: — (a) On or about September 10, 1932, at Auckland, theft of £400, the moneys of Sterling Investments Co. (N.Z.), Ltd- fc'v (b) On or about the same date, at Auckland, the theft of £350, the moneys of this company. (c) On or about October 20, 1932, at Auckland, the theft of ?325, the moneys of the company. ' In applying for a further remand, Mr. Evans-Scott said that Mr. H. F. O'Lcary, for the defence, had discussed the question of a fixture with Mr. P. S. K. Macassej', representing the Crown, and neither side was prepared to proceed at the moment. Mr. O'Leary would be appearing, for Eric Marco at his retrial in Auckland next week and would not be able to proceed until June 24, and the prosecution raised no objection to the case being adjourned until that date. Date in June Suitable. Mr. O'Lcary said June 24. would bo a suitable date, and agreed to McArthur being remanded until that date. The renewal of bail was asked for by Mr. O'Leary, who then referred to the condition imposed on accused when bail was granted a month ago. Mr. O'Leary asked for this condition to be removed. It was submitted that the condition was unnecessary and embarrassing to accused. Counsel understood that when the remand was granted, Mr. Macassey, who then appeared, asked that there should be a condition as to reporting to the police, the reason given being the great difficulty experienced in getting McArthur from Australia. He was quite entitled to resist the extradition proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that he alleged that in New Zealand he was ruined by legslntion and did not want to go to New- Zealand again. McArthur acquired interests in New South Wales and Queensland which required his attention, and were being prejudiced by his absence. The extradition proceedings, said Mr. O'Leary, had taken seven months. During that time McArthur was on bail, nnd no attempt was made by him to leave New South Wales. The bail condition embarrassed him in the preparation of his defence and in attending to his interests, and it was calculated to prejudice him and create an atmosphere against him. Further charges had now been laid against him, but, so far as they were concerned, anyone could lay charges. Mr. Evans-Scott said he could not consent to the deletion of the condition. an accused person was brought from another country under extradition, it was a customary condition that he report to the police. .Magistrate Varies Condition. After consulting with accused, Mr. O'Leary said one of the sureties was in Auckland. It would be necessary to communicate with him, and this might mean McArthur being in custody for a time. The magistrate thereupon said he would grant bail of £1000, with two sureties of. £500 each, with the special condition that McArthur report on Wednesdays and Saturdays in each week to the police in either Auckland, Wellington, Christcliurch or Dunedin.