ARREST ON LINER

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 171, 15 April 1932, Page 6

ARREST ON LINER

Furrier from Sydney FUR-COAT DISPUTE To Return to Australia Acting on instructions from the police authorities iu Sydney, Detective Bayliss apprehended and arrested Samuel Tobias, furrier, aged 34, on the arrival of the R.M.S. Monowai from San Francisco on April 4. He was wanted on a charge that on March 17 at Sydney, being bailee of one fur coat, the property of Myer Heilman, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use. Tobias appeared in the Police Court yesterday, and the magistrate, Mr. E. Page, made an order committing him to the care of a Sydney police officer, who had come across, and that ho be held in custody until he could be returned to Sydney. Counsel opposed an extradition order being made, stating that the particular transaction was a sale and not a bailment, and therefore it was not a criminal action for accused to leave Australia under those circumstances. Detective Bayliss said that on April 4 last he arrested accused on a provisional warrant on the arrival of the R.M.S. Monowai from San Francisco. He was travelling under au assumed name. After witness had read the provisional warrant over, accused said that ho had an answer to the charge. Accused, in a statement made subsequently, said that he left Sydney on March 17 on the Makura for San Francisco, having in his possession one Russian squirrel coat and 40 ermine skins, but when he reached Rarotonga the captain told him that he would not be permitted to land at San Francisco, and so he returned by the Monowai. Extradition Asked For. Detective-Sergeant A. Lavelle, of the Sydney police, produced the original warrant for the arrest of Samuel Tobias, and asked for the extradition of accused to Sydney. He knew accused by repute, and as far as he was aware he did not think that he had been before the police in any criminal matter before. He understood that accused obtained the squirrel fur coat from Myer Heilman, on the understanding that lie had a sale for it Heilman said that the coat, or its value, £5O, had to be returned the next day. Accused .did nothing, and left Sydney on the day following. In regard to other charges which were pending, two other furriers, named Kreiger and Morris, alleged that they had given furs to Tobias on the understanding that he had a sale for them, and they had not been returned. Counsel’s Submissions. Counsel for accused said that it was not in the interests of justice that Tobias should be returned to Sydney, and he submitted that the magistrate was entitled to assume the complete innocence of the man. Counsel submitted that the condition under which the coat was obtained was not a bailment, and accused was not a bailee, therefore the charge under the section could not, be established. It was submitted that taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, that the transaction In question ivas a sale on credit, and not a bailment, and that the matter was purely a civil one, and not a criminal one. Accused said that he carried on business in a fairly big way in Sydney as a manufacturing furrier. His turnover some years was as much as £20,000. On account,of his connection with the divorce case in 1929, which financially and socially ruined him, he retired from a big business. Describing the transaction in connection with the present charge, accused said that he took the coat on the understanding that it would be paid for in about two months. He regarded it as a sale. He booked a return passage from Sydney

to San Francisco costing £97. There was no restriction on his leaving Sydney, and he intended to return. He went' to San- Francisco to see If he could get anything iu tlie why of agencies, and perhaps do some business on the way. He did.not mind going back to Sydney alone, but he objected to doing so under a police escort. The magistrate said the allegation was that accused obtained goods to the value of about £250 on bailment, and fraudulently converted the goods to his own use. While expressing no opinion as to the charge for the obvious reason that the evidence was not before him, it might be .that accused would be able to establish an answer to the criminal allegation in Sydney, but he thought that it was his clear duty to make an order committing Tobias to the care of the police officer, holding him in custody until he could be returned to Sydney.