ALLEGED THEFT OF BRIDLE

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23354, 13 June 1941, Page 10

ALLEGED THEFT OF BRIDLE

CHARGE AGAINST TRAINER DISMISSED (F.0.0.R) TIMARU, June 12. “I cannot see that this man, who i enjoys a good reputation and must i know only too well the serious conse- : quences of such an act, would stoop to i the theft of a bridle valued-at such a paltry sum,” said Mr H. Morgan, ! S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, in dismissing a charge of theft against i George Henry Paul, a racehorse trainer, of Washdyke. Paul was charged with stealing a bridle valued ■ at £2 13s, the property of James : Mathew Williamson. The accused, who ■ was represented by Mr C. S. Thomas, pleaded not guilty. Detective-Sergeant , E. M. Thomas prosecuted. ' Outlining the case, Detective-Ser-i geant Thomas said Williamson obtained the bridle in' 1939, and about November or December of last year had it races at Ashburton. After the race his horse was loaded on to a float and the bridle was hung up in a stall on the float. Neither Williamson nor the accused, who was also present, travelled on the float, but when the horse was unloaded at Washdyke the bridle was missing. The accused had denied faking the bridle, and when it was found in his possession he claimed that the bridle was one he had purchased in Australia. Evidence was given by Arnold Henry Peter£, of Christchurch, a . saddled employed by Trist and Small, • who identified the bridle as one his ; firm had sold to Williamson. • Questioned about its, value, he said it would ] be worth from 25s to 30s at the pre- ! sent time. , Detective S. W. Cunningham said he i interviewed Paul and found the bridle ; in his possession. The accused said he . had bought it in Australia. . ; Charles Henry Williamson, a veter-, i inary of Timaru, said he 1 bought the bridle and gave it to his son, for whom he had reported the alleged theft. James Mathew Williamson, a horse ■ trainer, of Levels, said the bridle, produced in Court was the one given’him. by his father. Last April he visited the accused’s stable at Washdyke, accompanied by Detective Cunningham, and he identified the bridle found i there as his own. The accused re-: marked then that the ! bridle was bought in Australia. "The amount involved is only small, 1 but this matter is of the utmost seri- ! ousness to Paul,” said Mr • Thomas. “The accused was the holder of a- gen- : tleman rider’s licence and'has always'

had an excellent reputation. If he is convicted it will mean the end of him as far as racing is concerned. The Magistrate: Is that a fact? Counsel replied that there was no question of the penalty, if a man was convicted, in the racing world. “According to his statement Paul stayed in Ashburton after putting his horse on the float that carried Williamson’s horse and others,” said Mr Thomas. “He had arranged for a boy named Henderson to take his horse off at Washdyke.” Counsel i emphasised that the accused had ridden a horse wearing the bridle in the case, and that he had done so in the view of the man from whom he was alleged to have stolen it. and anyone else who wanted to see it. It was most unlikely, he contended. that if Paul had stolen the bridle from Williamson he would openly display it as his own property. It was not until Paul found the T. and S. brand on the bridle that he was satisfied it was not his. The position now was that Williamson’s reins were missing and also Paul’s headstall and bit. Mr Thomas appealed to the Court not to convict unless it was satisfied beyond doubt, as the results for his client would be disastrous.

Evidence was given by the accused and several witnesses who travelled on the float. Erqfst John Ellis and Michael Cassidy Testified to Paul’s good character and reputation. “There is no dispute that the bridle in question is the property of Williamson, from whom it was alleged to be stolen, and it would seem that the theft occurred on the float,” said the Magistrate. “The accused was apparently sincere in the belief that the bridle he subsequently used was his own. How the bridle came to be with his equipment is not dear, but I am not satisfied that a case of theft has been made out. There is also the possibility of unauthorised interference having taken place. The case will accordingly be dismissed.”

An order was made for the parts of the bridle to be returned to their respective owners.