U.S. PROPERTY

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 56, 7 March 1944, Page 6

U.S. PROPERTY

FOUND IN GRILL ROOM

PROPRIETOR FINED £25

In fining an Auckland restaurant keeper £25 and costs for having in his possession, without lawful authority, parts of United States uniforms valued at £14 7/6, Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday afternoon, commented at length on the duty and obligations of the keepers and proprietors of restaurants, hotels, places of entertainment and dance halls visited by members of the United States forces.

Defendant was Thomas Vittle, proprietor of the Sunshine Grill Rooms, who pleaded not guilty to the charge. Detective-Sergeant F. N. Aplin, who prosecuted, said the American clothing was found in Vittle's possession when police visited his restaurant on November 30 last. Defendant explained that, with the exception of a naval pea-jacket, which he bought from a sailor for £4 10/, the clothing had all been left at the restaurant at different times by servicemen. In some cases they had told him he could keep it if they did not return for it.

Mr. L. P. Leary, who represented Vittle, said the defence was that a good deal of gear was left in Vittle's premises by careless customers. Vittle had it in his room for safe keeping. A soldier would give evidence that he had left a jacket at defendant's place to be cleaned, tea having been spilt on it while he was having a meal. The clothing found by the police represented property unclaimed over a period of 18 months.

S.M.'s Warning

Mr. Luxford said the prohibition imposed under the Uniform and Badges Regulations, 1911, was primarily to guard against unlawful masquerading in uniforms by persons not entitled to wear them, and, secondly, to ensure that materials produced for purposes of war were used by the forces and not by the civilian population. h\ interpreting the regulations it was necessary to look at their general scope and see that they were reasonably applied. It was true that a soldier might inadvertently leave parts of his uniform in a private house, hotel. restaurant or place of entertainment. Such cases would not come within the scope of the regulations, having regard to the evil they were designed to remedy.

"But when a person finds these articles on his premises there is a definite obligation imposed on him," continued Mr. Luxford. "Unless this obligation is discharged, he then comes within the provisions of the regulations. I acquit defendant of having acquired the clothing and equipment by any than honest means, but find there has been a general disregard of the obligations imposed by the regulations, it becomes defendant's duty, as it does other people's, to protect Government property. If articles are left on premises they should be carefully noted, with place and date, and if they are not claimed within 24 or 28 hours, the police, shore patrol or other authorities should be notified. If people do not do this, then they are in possession of property without lawful authority."

The magistrate said that although the offence did not warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty of £200, a substantial fine must be imposed. This Mr. Luxford assessed at £25 and costs.