ALLEGED LARCENY AS A BAILEE.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7252, 7 March 1889, Page 6

ALLEGED LARCENY AS A BAILEE.

At the City Police Court, yesterday morning, before Messrs R. Westenra and F. J. Kimbell, Arthur Welle was charged wich the larceny as a bailee of three diamond rings, value £10, the property of Carl Koha, on the 29th December, 1688, at Auckland. Mr Stringer appeared for the accused, who had been arrested on a telegram from Inspector iiroham, at Auckland. Mr Stringer objected to the police detaining the accused without a warrant. Inspector Pender said he had evidence. He called Detective O'Connor, who deposed that he arrested the accused. The telegram stated a warrant had been issued. The accused admitted receiving the rings. He was to have bought one, but he raised money on them. The Bench did not think they could remand the accused without a warrant. Inspector Pender said that in this case they had certain evidence. Mr Stringer • on tended that there was no evidence of an information having been laid. If Detective O'Connor laid one it would be another matter. Inspector Pender said he believed. he would be justified in doing that. The police had power under clause 35 of the Police Offences Act to arrest anyone for a misdemeanour without warrant. (The clause was read. It stated that ••Any constable .... may take into custody without a warrant .... any person whom he shall have good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit a*»y felony, misdemeanour or breach of the peace.") Detective O'Connor, in reply to Mr Stringer, said the accused had told him he had raised the money on the rings, and had telegraphed to Kohn asking him to accept a three months' bill for the amount. The Bench thought on this evidence they could grant a remand. The accused was remanded till the 13th inst.,tobe brought np sooner if the warrant arrived from Auckland. Bail was allowed in two sureties of 4J50 each, or one at £100.