WITNESSES MISTAKEN

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 226, 20 June 1936, Page 14

WITNESSES MISTAKEN

Alleged Siphoning of Petrol

From Cars

CHARGES DISMISSED Holding that though they had given their evidence honestly, the principal police witnesses had made “a grievous miscalculation” regarding what they saw, Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., in die Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, yesterday, dismissed four charges against Herbert James Staubridge, proprietor of the Stanolene service station, of siphoning petrol from cars in his parking area. Senior-Sergeant J. Dempsey prosecuted and Mr. G. G. Watson, with him Mr. C. H. Hain, appeared for Staubridge, who at tbe beginning of the ease last week had pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Edwin Clifford Perrett and John Edward Ramsay gave evidence regarding the parking of their cars in Stanbridge’s parking area. Ramsay said that on occasions he had found less benzine in his car than he would have expected to find. Detective H. H. Hudson produced a statement from Staubridge, who admitted having siphoned petrol on occasions. He said he had siphoned about a pint of petrol from Denby’s car. Denby parked there free of charge because he bought his petrol from him. He suspected that Denby was buying petrol elsewhere and he took the petrol to- determine if it were a brand other than that which he stocked. That had been done without the owner’s knowledge or consent. He had siphoned petrol from another car and mixed it with upper cylinder lubricant. The owner had previously complained about the starting qualities of his car and he (Stanbridge) had added the oil without his knowledge so. as not to lose a customer. Submissions for Defence. • Mr. Watson submitted that the perfectly honest actions of an innocent man had been distorted and twisted into a sinister complexion, against which there was a perfectly honest answer. He asked the court to consider the, broad probabilities or improbabilities of the case, ine parking area was large and open and was frequented by many owners of cars driving hi and out. No harrier divided t<e area from a busy service station and the whole place was overlooked by adjoining buildings, including the windows of two stories bf the police station. Stanbridge was accused of the theft of a petty amount of petrol from parked cars when under his control he had thousands of gallons. Apart from the evidence of Miss Cope, there was no direct evidence that any petrol had been stolen. Counsel attacked Miss Cope’s evidence particularly where she said she had seen a funnel standing unaided in the tank ot Stanbridge’s car. The only funnel on the place would not stand up unaided, nor would another which had subsequently been purchased for the purpose of demonstration. Mr. Watson submitted that the whole case must fall to the ground. The court adjourned to inspect the car and the funnel and to test the visibility from the fourth floor of the Levy Building where Miss Cope works. When the court resumed Mr. Stilwell said it was desirable to recall Miss Cope and Mr. Henderson regarding tbe funnel of which they had spoken. Miss Cope said that the funnel had a round top and a stem about 12 .inches long. Henderson corroborated this evidence. Defendant’s Evidence. Defendant, in evicenee, said he was the owner of two oil stations and had substantial independent means. He gave details of the position of cars and said there was never a little car next to his. He had taken petrol from five cars. Denby, a permanent customer for petrol, had parked his car there occasionally, and witness did not mind as long as he bought his petrol from witness. He became suspicious that Denby was buying his petrol elsewhere and siphoned a quantity off to see ’ f B was the kind he sold. He was annoyed and, having no funnel, did not want io u»« the risk of splashing Denby’s new car, so he put it in his own tank. As a means of pushing the sale of upper cylinder oil he had syphoned petrol out, mixed it with the oil and placed it back in the tank. £n cases where regular customers were having difficulty with starting, he . had been in the habit of putting in the oil without telling the owners, and had thus made many customers for the lubricant. His actions had been perfectly open in the

presence of people coming and going. He had intended to speak to Denby about buying different petrol, and waited till 6 p.m. to do so. To witness’s surprise Denby bought two gallons of petrol and witness decided not to mention the matter to him. To Senior-Sergeant Dempsey: He had never suggested to Denby that he should pay. There was no arrangement that Denby would buy his petrol from him. Witness was cross-examined at considerable length about the statement he had made to the police. Portions of the statement, he said, were incorrect, the reason being that he had been flurried through having been told he was wanted for speeding. The magistrate said that the evidence in the main came .from two witnesses. Miss Cope and Henderson, and in some respects their statements and those of. Stanbridge coincided. One statement, however, had been effectively challenged by the defence. That was that the funnel had remained upright in the tank of defendant’s car during the period necessary to siphon off the petrol. A demonstration had established beyond any doubt whatever that a straight funnel such as they described would not stand up. “In this respect,” Mr. Stilwell added, “I have come to the conclusion that though they have given their evidence honestly, they made a grievious miscalculation in regard to what they saw. Stanbridge’s explanation has been given, and it is one I am disposed to accept. Three charges will be dismissed. In the case of Denby’s car, defendant technically admits the offence. He admits having taken a quantity of petrol in a spirit of pique for the purpose of a test. It was quite tbe human thing to do, and white technically it must be regarded as some form of theft, its nature is so trivial that I propose to dismiss it under that head, without costs.”