Man took drugs, cash from chemist shops

Press, 11 April 1978, Page 10

Man took drugs, cash from chemist shops

An unemployed man who told rhe police that he had a drug problem when he was charged with breaking into four Christchurch chemist ! shops within a month was convicted and iemanded on bail of SlOOO to April 24 for sentence by Mr K. W. Frampton. S.M.. in the , Magistrate's Court yester- ■ dav David Walter Feeney, aged 21, pleaded guilty to four charges of burglary involving cash and drugs valued at more than $9OO. Sergeant M. P. Caldwell said that the police found a quantity of drugs at the defendant’s address when a ) search warrant had been executed. The drugs had been taken from one of the! i chemist shops. The defend- j I ant admitted having broken i into three other chemist | shops. Compensation of $931 was sought. ARMS CHARGES 1 Michael Thomas John •■ Lewis, aged 25, was remanded without plea to, April 17 on bail of $lOOO ! when he appeared on three ! ; charges laid under the Arms Act. Lewis, who was handcuffed during his brief appearance in the dock, was i charged with having in his ; possession a .306 rifle and a' 1.22 rifle, without proper, | sufficient, and lawful pur-! \ pose. He was also charged, I with discharging the .22 rifle with a reckless disregard for: •the safety of others. j The alleged offences oc-) icurred on Saturday. They re-j late to an incident in which I . two shots were fired at a! traffic officer’s car in the | New Brighton area. ESCAPING COUNT j A man who is said toi have escaped from the cus-1 tody of the Magistrate’s Court and who was later ap-l prenended at Timaru was re-! manded in custody to April; 14 without plea. William John Reaich, aged • 20, faced charges of earlier I having escaped from Pa-

parua Prison on March 13; and of procuring a person or; persons unknown to break and enter shop premises in; Otematata on or about March 14. Reaich was handcuffed 1 during his appearance in the dock. ATTEMPTED-MURDER CHARGE A Timaru man, aged 49, was remanded in custody to May 10 for the taking ofdepositions on a charge of! attempted murder. The man, a labourer, was granted interim suppression) of his name. He was charged ! with the attempted murder! of Aileen Patricia Murray' and that he wounded Mrs 1 ; Murray with intent. The charge relates to a; stabbing incident in the; Bush Inn Hotel, Riccarton! Road, on March 25.

SIX CHARGES

A man charged with six offences was remanded tn custody to April 14 after the

I police ‘’strongly opposed” a! request for bail for him. lan Stanley Luscombe, > aged 19. a fencer, was charged with stealing a car ‘ valued at $l5OO, receiving! the car. having cannabis leaf in his possession, receiving* an assortment of tools, possession of gelignite, and bur- > glary. No plea was entered. All the alleged offences were committed last month, .four in Christchurch and; two in Dunedin. ! (Before Mr F. G. Paterson,! S.M.) FRAUD SENTENCE Seven months periodic de-' tention, 19 months proba-' 'tion, and an order that he[ pay $2OOO in compensation I was imposed on Robert Te jHira Wati, aged 31, when he; appeared for sentence on a; i charge of fraud. j Wati had earlier pleaded; guilty to a charge that with intent to defraud he had used a cheque payable to J. C. Ballantyne for the sum ofi

$3021 for his own pecuniary advantage. The Court had been told that Wati had presented the cheque at a bank where he had opened an account with it. Two days later he had obtained a pass book and had made a cash withdrawal of $2OOO. Counsel Mr M. J. Glue, said he had been instructed that his client had been talked into cashing the cheque, yet no-one else had been charged. He had also been instructed that his client could make restitution of the sum taken. The Magistrate told Wati it was a “substantial” fraud. The defendant had a substantial background of of-i fending, including much dishonesty, although there had not been any offending in the last four or five years. Although it was obvious that Wati. deserved to go toj prison for his latest offence, i the Magistrate was inclined ! to agree that on this occasion it would be to the detriment of the defendant.