FINE OF £10.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19975, 9 July 1930, Page 5

FINE OF £lO.

THEFTS FROM RAILWAY WORKSHOPS. EMPLOYEE CONVICTED. Charges of theft and of receiving Eailway Department property against Reuben Stanley Baldwin, a striker employed at the Addington workshops, were heard at the Magistrate's Court before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., yesterday. Mr E. S. Bowie appeared for the accusod. The charges were:—That at Christchurch on December 14th he stole a tarpaulin valued at £6, the property of the Railway Department. That at Christchurch on or about June 30th, he stole two pieces of tarpaulin valued at 2s, the property of the Railway Department; and that, at Christchurch, on or about October 26th, 1929, he stole a piece of br&ss valued at 13s sd, the property of the Railway Department; and that at Christchurch on or about October 26th, 1929, ho stole a piece of rope valued at 7s, the property of the Railway Department. There wore alternative charges of receiving the goods. Accused pleaded not guilty to each of the charges.

Chief-Detective J. Carroll Baid that there was a Btraight-out charge of theft of the tarpaulin, but for the other property there were alternative charges of receiving. Accused was employed at the Addington Workshops, and had been there for 24 years. As a result of inr formation received, Detective-Sergeant young and Detective Thomas had called on accused and had told him of the charges. A search of his home had revealed a great deal of property, about which accused had been able 'to give no satisfactory explanation. He had said that the rope had been given him by a man passing by to keep until his return.

Charles Alexander Jenkini, works manager at the Addington Workshops, t identified the tarpaulin as Railway proI perty, and valued it at approximately £6. He further identified the pieces of j tarpaulin, and the piece of brass, and said that the rope was similar to rail- [ Way property. Neither accused nor ! any other person had authority to remove the property. Other property produced in relation to the receiving charges was also identified. Accused would have daily opportunities of earning in contact with similar property, and should have no difficulty in recogising it as belonging to the Department. Mr Bowie: Accused could have arranged to borrow a tarpaulin from the Department P—He might have been able to do so. It is sometimes done. Mr Bowie: Aren't the old tarpaulins thrown out? —No. they are sold to the farmers. Detective-Sergeant J. B. Young said that he had gone to the accused with Detective Thomas, and had questioned him about the charges. Accused had then denied taking anything, except a small piece of brass for a sinker. With Mr Jenkins thev had later gone to the house of accused, and taken possession of the property. They had obtained n statement from accused to the effect that most of the property had been in his possession several vears. and had been adapted to various uses. He either did not know whero pieces had been obtained, or had forgotten. The insulated wire had been given him by a man now in Timaru, but he had forgotten his name. Detective E. M. Thomas corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. > Mr Bowie objected to much of the " property being used as evidence, as. it was not concerned with definite charges. There was no evidence, about the rope, which had not been identi* Bed. Accused maintained that the scraps of tarpaulin had been thrown out, and he had thought that he could find a use for them. The large tarpaulin he had intended to return, but he had borrowed it in a hurry when his house was being repaired, to cover the roof. He might have obtained permission to' take it. but it would nave taken time to arrange this. Accused said that he had picked up one of the small pieces of tarpaulin near' where the Department usually burned old tarpaulin, and the other near the blacksmith's shop. He had never tak»n anything that was any good to the Government, and at the time no thought that he had a right to take such property. He had bought the brass rods, which were curtain rods, at auction 6ales. , Victot btanlev Baldwin, a son of the accused, said that his father had not confided in him concerning the manner in which the property had been obtained. . , The Magistrate said that as far as the rope was concerned the charge was dismissed. The explanations for the other charges were unsatisfactory, He had no doubt that the property had been taken bv the accused to devote to his own uses. The main story as told from the box had been very weak. In view of accused's ilona service he did not want to imprison him without the option of a fine. The charges of receiving some of the property were withdrawn by the police. On the charsre of stealing the tarpaulin accused was fined £lO. in default two months' imprisonment: on the charges of stealing the pieces of tarnn»lin and hraiw he wns convicted and discharged: and the charge of receiving the rope was dismissed. Accused was allowed seven davs in which to oav. and «n order was made to return the goods.