"POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18034, 31 July 1922, Page 7

"POLICE COURT

Monday, July 31,

(Before Mr E. W. Bundle, S.M.)

THEFT OF TYRES. Elicit dealing in motor tyres brought William James Grenfell, a young man of twenty-one, and Arthur George Scherp, a taxi driver, before the court on charges of theft and receiving respectively. There were four informations against Grenfell in respect to Goodrich cord tyres valued at £l2 4s 6d each. Scherp was charged on three informations in respect to these tyres, which were the property of Lewis Docking Johnston. Grenfell (who was represented by Mr W. L. Moore) pleaded guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Chief-detective Bishop said that accused was a young married man in the employ of the Para Rubber Company for the past four years, eighteen months of the time in Dunedin. Ho had sold tho tyres to Scherp and another man named Didham. Accused and the manager were the only ones who had access to the office. The tyres had been recovered.

Mr Moore said the chief detective had put the case fairly, and there was nothing to add except to point out that accused had been very candid when approached by the police. Ho bad had such a lesson that he would never transgress again. Counsel asked that the benefit of the Probation Act bo applied to accused. The Magistrate ordered that the charge against Scherp should! be brought before decision was given in Grenfell’s case. Scherp (for whom Mr I.rwin appeared) was then charged, and pleaded guilty. Tho Chief-detective said that accused ■was a married man, with a family. He obtained the tyres at different times from Grenfell, paying £5 for one and £4 each for tho other two. Accused had not needed tho tyres at the time; this was proved by the fact that they were still unused when recovered by tho police. Accused had not been before the court before on any criminal charge. Mr Irwin said accused was well known, and had hitherto borne a good character. Grenfell had owed him a considerable amount of money for hires—-one being on the occasion of his wedding—and accused had' difficulty in getting payment. Grenfell suggested that he should take the tyres in part payment. Accused’s occupation as a taxi driver would probably be gone as a result of this matter, and ho would have to dispose of h;s car. The Probation Officer recommended that both accused should bo given. ■ the benefit of probation. The Magistrate said there were caees in which he had grave doubts about granting probation. It was a case of the theft of several tyres, not of one. As regards Scherp, it was quite clear that he knew the position; that there was money owing was no excuse. However, ho (His Worship) would take into consideration the police and probation officer’s reports and the fact that Scherp would probably’ lose his license. Each accused would ho placed on probation ter two years. In GrenfeH’s case he was ordered to pay a fine of £3 in respect to each charge. CHARGE DISMISSED. Ernest Nelson Didham pleaded not guilty to receiving a Goodrich type valued at £l2 4s 6d, knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. Mr Irwin defended. William James Grenfell, the former accused) said that Didham often had transactions with the Para Rubber Company. Witness rang accused up at 10 o’clock one night and offered him a tyre. Accused came down to the office and received the tyre, and gave witness £1 10s. Later on he paid another £l. The sale was not entered in the books, as they were locked up. There was no price mentioned when witness offered accused the tyro. To Mr Irwin: Ho had hired Didham on two occasions. Witness had told Didham that he would he able to get him a tyre cheap, and Didham only knew that he would have to pay less than tho proper price. Lewis Johnston, manager of. the Tara Rubber Company, said that taxi drivers were allowed discount on tyres. Accused had been dealing with his company for soma considerable time. Witness was thunderstruck when, he heard about the charge accused. Didham hardly ever paid spot cash for tyres, and witness would have noticed .if accused had any new tyres on his car. 1 There were three tyres still missing 'which had not been accounted for by accused. Detective Lean detailed interviewing accused and receiving a statement to the effect that Grenfell rang accused' up and asked accused to come down to the office and drive him home. When at the office Grenfell offered him a tyre, which he accepted, paying £1 10s on it. Accused, ■when asked, frankly stated that he bought a. tyre from Grenfell.

Mr Irwin mid that a-3 far as Oldham was concerned it •was an ordinary sale of a tyre. Accused went to the Para Rubber Company to pick up Grenfell, who intimated that he might as well take a. tyro ■while he was there, which he did, thinking it an ordinary trading transaction. The accused in his evidence said that on the Monday night Grenfell came to him on the rank and asked him for £l, which he gave (him. Grenfell had! never said that he would! get accused a tyre cheap. The Magistrate said that the case against accused rested mainly on the evidence of Grenfell. In order to convict ho would have to believe Grenfell before accused. He was not satisfied why defendant should go down to the Para' Rubber Company at that time of night and obtain a tyre and treat it as am ordiinary business transaction. Grenfell was very vague as to what price was to he paid on the tyre. The circumstances were certainly suspicious, but he could not see bin way "to accept Grenfell’s evidence in preference to Oldham's. The case would be dismissed. WIFE DESERTION ALLEGED. John Godfrey Tuxford was charged with having at Christchurch deserted his wife and infant children.—'The Chief Detective asked that defendant he remanded to appear at Christchurch on Friday.—Defendant said he had started work here, and asked that he he given a chance to go on with it. He had come down from Christchurch with some lines to sell.—‘The Rev. G. E. Morton said that he lead had communications regarding Tuxford. It was not the first time the latter had been brought under the Rev. Mr King’s notice in_ connection with the maintenance of his wife.— Remanded to Christchurch. drunkenness. Arthur Ernest M'Ginn pleaded guilty to drunkenness and to committing a breach of his prohibition order. He was fined 10s (or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment) on the first charge amd 20s (or seven days) on the second 1 . “SEEING THINGS.” Robert Stephenson Thompson pleaded guiity to failing to register a revolver.— Sub-inspector Eocks said that, owing to drink, accused was bordering on “D.T.s,’’ and was looking for “things” with a revolver, which was not in working order. He had complained to the police about some men making a noise outside hie house. —The Magistrate advised accused to take out a prohibition order, 'which ho said ha would. He was convicted and the revolver confiscated. BY-LAWS.

For riding a motor cycle -without lights John Keen was convicted and ordered to pay costs (7s).