SUPREME COURT Freezing Worker Charged With Stealing Two Lamb Livers

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31989, 16 May 1969, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Freezing Worker Charged With Stealing Two Lamb Livers

The alleged theft of two lamb livers valued at 60 cents is the cause of trial in a hearing which began before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The accused, William O’Neill, aged 43, a freezing worker (Mr B. McClelland), pleaded not guilty to the charge of theft as a servant of the New Zealand Refrigerating Company on January 24.

Mr N. W. Williamson appeared for the Crown. Graham McKie Wilson, a board walker, employed by the New Zealand Refrigerating Company at its Islington works, said in evidence that he was supervisor of the No. 3 chain on January 24. He arranged a relief for the accused who was working on guts on the chain about 11.10 a.m. when the accused wanted to go to the toilet. As the accused walked towards the locker room the witness noticed a bulge in the top of his apron. The witness and another board walker followed the accused into the locker room where he saw the accused put a plastic bag into locker 39. When the witness asked the accused what he was putting in the locker he slammed the door and rushed round the corner into a toilet When he came out the witness asked him if he had put offal in locker No. 39.

The accused said his locker was No. 145 and denied taking offal from the chain. When the chain delegate, Mr Rees, came up the accused said he had been “accused of pinching livers.” To a question from Mr Williamson the witness said livers had not been mentioned before then. Two livers were found in a plastic bag in locker No. 39.

The manager then told the accused he was finished, to change his clothes, and get off the premises. Cross-examined by Mr McClelland, the witness agreed that it was not uncommon for offal to be removed from the carcase before it reached the appropriate place on the

• chain. He said that in the i past lambs’ fry and kidneys t had been removed in this manner. Asked if the fact that the I accused had been dismissed i without the opportunity of i giving an explanation had [ caused a lot of trouble at s the works, the witness said:

“I don’t know. I thought it was through his getting the sack.” The witness agreed there had been considerable trouble in the works which had involved a close-down for three days and a half. The trial will continue today.