SIPHONING PETROL

Evening Star, Issue 21720, 15 May 1934, Page 17

SIPHONING PETROL

TWO YOUNG MEN FINEO “ If I suppress your names it would he a clear case of class distinction for which there could be no justification,” said Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Police Court this morning, in answer to the pleas of William Lloyd Alexander (19) and Joseph Kenneth Hay (22), two dental students who were caught last evening siphoning petrol from a car in Crawford street. The charge, to which they pleaded guilty, was of stealing some petrol and a petrol tank cap, a total value of 3s 6d, from Frank Rutherford Walker. Chief-detective Young told the court that at 9 o’clock last evening Inspector Munro, of the City Corporation traffic stall’, was on patrol duty in Crawford street when he noticed two young men standing beside a motor cycle opposite the Brydone Hall. There were cars on either side of the machine. The inspector became suspicious, and then saw one of the young men with what appeared to he a siphon. He swung his car lights on to them and his suspicions were confirmed. He stopped his ear and got out, but one of the voting men ran away north along Crawford street. Inspector Munro chased him and caught him with a siphon and tubes. This was the accused Alexander, and when ho was brought into the detective office he admitted the offence. A cap from a petrol tank was also found in his possession. Hay made off on the motor cycle but he was later arrested, and admitted his part in the offence.. It was found that a quantity of petrol and a cap from the tank were missing from Mr Walker’s car. Petrol was also missing from another car in the immediate vicinity, but the accused denied stealing this. Alexander, who was the principal offender, was the owner of the motor cycle. He was a dental student, nineteen years of ago. His mother lived at Oamaru. Hay, who was twenty-two, was in his second year as a dental student. He came from Auckland. “ These youths say that this is the first time they have committed an offence like this,” concluded the chief-detective, “ hut I suggest from the apparatus that was found in their possession, that they had obviously been at it before. This class of offence is very prevalent, and, moreover, is difficult to detect.” Both the accused made an earnest plea for leniency, and said that if their names were published they would he sent down and their careers ruined. They stated that they had been, at a capping concert rehearsal, and attributed their lapse to the exuberance of the capping season. The Magistrate said that the chiefdetective had pointed out that this was a serious offence, and one very difficult to detect. And, in view of the apparatus with which the accused had provided themselves, His Worship could not take their offence ns an impulsive act. They had made quite a manly admission, but he regretted that it was not a case for suppression of the names. Their offence was possibly due, to some extent, to the exuberance of the student festival, hut men in their position should have known better. If His Worship suppressed their names _ it would he a clear case of class distinction for which there could he no justification. Alexander and Hay were both fined £2, in default seven days’ imprisonment.