MISSING BOOTS

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 56, 8 March 1922, Page 8

MISSING BOOTS

CHARGE OF BREAKING AND

ENTERING.

A charge of breaking arid entering the warehouse of George and Doughty between 21st January .and 23rd January, and stealing 21| pairs of boots, valued at £21 15s, was made against a man named - Walter George Burton, who appeared,before Mr. ■W. G. JRiddell, S.M., atsthe Magistrate's Court to-day. Chief - Betective Kemp conducted tho case for the police, and the accused was represented by Mr. O. C. Mazengarb. Eric Chalmers Charters, manager of the Royal Shoe Factory, owned by George and Doughty, said that on the 21st January he left the factory well locked up. On 23rd January he received a telephone message, and on returning to the factory he found that the place had been broken into, and the articles mentioned in the charge were missing. To Mr. Mazengarb: During the sixteen years he had been employed by the firm he j had only ouce known it to dispose of any of its goods by auction.

John Garner Wayne, foreman finisher for George and Doughty, also gave evidence. . He said that four of the boots that were missing were unfinished.

Detective TricWebarik said that on the morning of 23rd February -last he obtained a warrant entitling him to. search the accused's house in Newtown. At the liouse he found seven boota, and the accused said that his wife had purchased them from Vine and Wilson's auction mart about eighteen months ago. Witness charged Burton with the theft of the boots. At 10.15 a.m. the same day the boots were identified as being part of 21£ pairs, the property of George and Doughty. later Burton said he would tell the truth about the matter, and he made a statement to the effect that he had purchased five pairs of boots from a man who had called at his house. Subsequently the detective charged the accused with breaking and entering. On behalf of the accused, Mr. Mazengarb said that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge of breaking and entering. The accused had not been seen near the warehouse. The Magistrate said that the Court's duty was to find whether a prime facie case had been made out or not, and'in this case there was certainly some evidence. The onus was on the accused to account for his possession of the goods. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.