"HIRE PURCHASE"

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 137, 7 December 1922, Page 4

"HIRE PURCHASE"

A CHARGE 'OF THEFT.

A young man named Francis Augustus Stempa, 23 years of age, appeared before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, on a charge of the theft of a gramophone, valued at £45 125,-the property of Charles Begg and

Co. Chief-Detective Kemp prosecuted, and Mr« J. Scott appeared for the accused. • Chief-Detective Kemp explained that on 17th February, the accused had entered into a' contract With the complainant firm at Dunedin, to buy the grataophone for £43 12sj at' the rate of £2 16s per - month, besides, a cash deposit of £10. The instrument was not to become Stempa's property until after the payment of the final instalment. The accused, on sth. April, had pawned the gramophone to' a dealer, Walter Smart, for £25, and on 22nd June, the latter had finally bought it for. £7 10s. Stempa was unmarried and was a traveller and a sales-nan by occupation.

Henry Arthur Webster, an employee of Charles' Begg and Co., said that acting under instructions he had interviewed the accused and had charged him with the theft of the instrument. Stempa admitted having sold it and offered to make the necessary restitution if given reasonable time. Terms were,discussed and it was arranged that the defendant should again see witness on the following day. This, however, he did not do. .Complete restitution had since, been made. The accused had obtained the gramophone 6n what was known as the "hire purchase system." Walter Smart, licensed second-hand dealer, outlined the negotiations between himself and the deferidant as to the pledging and the subsequent buying of the instrument. : Evidence was also given by Charles Edmond Payne, an, ex-employee of the complainant firm, who stated that the gramophone had been sold to the defendant on the hire purchase system, and Detective' Walsh, to whom Stempa had made a written statement. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Scott submitted that the information should be dismissed, 3ince the accused had subsequently completed the contract.

The Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction in the matter after a prima facie case had been established and, the accused, .who pleaded flat guilty, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being allowed on his own bond of £SQ and a 'security of £50.