PILLAGING ON THE WHARVES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 241, 29 June 1918, Page 6

PILLAGING ON THE WHARVES

. ANOTHER CASE BEFORE THE COURT. A further case of wharf pillaging was heard by Jlr. I l '. V. Frazer, S.M., at the Alagistrate's Court yesterday, when a waterside worker named' Samuel Lawler was charged that on June 20 he siole 2!lb. of tea, and one tin of sardines, valued ' at. v ss.', the property.of the Wellington Harbour Buard. Inspector AJarsaek prosecuted, and Air. H. R. O'Leary appeared'for accused. Constable Cleverley slated that on June 20 :he saw accused coming off. the wliavf, and he asked him what he had under his coat. • Accused replied, "Tea, ■which 1 found lying on the floor of 'C Shed." Wituess searched him and,found the tea and tin of sardines. In' company with one of the Harbour Board officials, witness examined the "C" shed and found that there, was somo tea lying on the floor.. Cases were sometimes damaged owing to rough handling. Evidence was given by a Harbour Board official, Air. Kcmpton, 'that the tea and sardines were tie property of the Wellington Harbour Hoard. Somo tea nnd sardines had been stored in "C" shed.. To Air. O'Leary: The tea came in frail packages, and it did not require much rough handling to break tlieni. What tea was lying.on the floor would have been swept up and dumped. That would have been done with the tea taken by 'accused. ■ Duncan W. Alexander, assistant wharfinger in the employ of the Harboiir Board, said there was a regulation that nothing was to be taken away from tlio wharves by workers, not even stuff that might be lying on the floors of the sheds. . Ilis-Worship said lie felt sure that accusal had not broken into any cases. At the' same time, his action ir. taking tho tea and (lie tin of sardines which ho found on the floor amounted to theft. Air. O'Leary asked that accused might be dealt with lightly. The man had worked on the wharves for a number of years and bore a reputable character. "This case is one of a numerous class," said His Worship, "and ordinarily is of a' more serious nature." Pillaging was a most difficult thing to detect, and in some cases it was impossible to' say where tho leakage occurred, hi tlio present case, tho 'circumstances were not so serious as in other instances, yet they could not be looked upon lightly. If the Court were to make a practice •of dealing with such eases leniently it would only encourage other men to break open eases by handling (hem roughly and resort to pillaging. Accused was fined «I' 3, in default 14 days' imprisonment.