ALLEGED THEFT OF IRON

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28514, 18 February 1958, Page 11

ALLEGED THEFT OF IRON

Employee Found Not Guilty Charged with the theft of goods from his employer, Edgar Howard Kiddey, a pensioner, was found not guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. Appearing before Mr Justice Adams and a jury, Kiddey was charged with stealing three sheets of flat iron, two lengths of spouting and a length of downpipe, valued at £4 ss, from A. and T. Burt, Ltd., on December 12, 1957. Kiddey pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr A. D. Holland. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) said that Kiddey was employed by the firm as a storeman, and on December 12 last was told to deliver some ranges in a truck. While the truck was in the loading bay at the warehouse the manager had drawn Kiddey’s attention to a sheet of iron on the top of the load which was dirty and discoloured. After the accused had driven off in the truck it was found that the iron, the downpipe, and spouting had not been charged, and the same day these goods were found at Kiddey’s home, said Mr Mahon.

The accused had claimed that he had permission from the head storeman to load the goods on to the truck and that he had intended to buy them and charge them ud when he returned. By the time the police had interviewed Kiddey he had still not charged the goods, Mr Mahon said. The manager would say that the accused had been permitted to take sheets of iron only if they were unsaleable, but Kiddey was not authorised to take the other article?. All the goods removed were in good order. Evidence would show that Kiddey could not have charged the goods as he had no account with the firm. Evidence on these lines- was given by Gordon Allan Whyte, the warehouse manager; Spencer, formerly head storeman at the firm; and Detective G. F. Gillies. Case for Defence For the defence Mr Holland said that Kiddey’s evidence was that he was given the iron, and thought it was scrap, and that he had intended to buy the downpipe and spouting. He had been unable to pay for them before he was arrested. The jury had tb be satisfied that the head storeman had no authority to give Kiddey the goods and that the accused was aware of this. The defence case was that Kiddey believed he had the right to take the goods away. “What he did could have been done by a number of storemen — and honest storemen,” Mr Holland said. “He was not given the opportunity of proving his innocence by writing out the invoice before he stopped work that night, but was arrested that afternoon and taken to the police station.”

Mr Mahon submitted that on the evidence Kiddey did take the iron without colour of right. The accused’s explanation could not be accepted, as there was no proper method by which he could have charged the goods.