FOOLISH ACT

Evening Star, Issue 22032, 18 May 1935, Page 10

FOOLISH ACT

“ WEETIES " TAKEN FROM MAIL BAG CPer United Press Association.] DANNEVIRKE. May 17. An unusual case came before the magistrate (Mr J. Miller, S.M.) when Arthur James Webber, a well-known public accountant was charged with stealing packets of “ Weeties ” valued at 4s 7d, the property of Cereal Foods Ltd. The police stated that the postman left a sealed mail bag, containing 69 samples of “ Weeties ” (biscuits) at a shop recognised by the Post Office as a depot-for overflow mail. It was bo have been picked up later by the postman for delivery of the biscuits. The defendant was working in a professional capacity in the depot when the bag was left. When the postman returned ho found that the contents had been removed. He was given the empty bag by Webber. Forty-five packets of “ Weeties ” had been recovered. When the postman inquired for the remainder the defendant jok-

ingly remarked, “ You will have less to deliver.” The defendant said he was busy when the postman left the bag and understood that the bag contained something for the firm for whom he was working. He opened it and as he could see no address on the packages concluded they were either surplus stores or rejected material that had been left to be destroyed - . Witness handed back the empty bag to the postman and pointed to a drawer, which he had filled with the packages. To his surprise the postman picked them up. As all the parcels would not go into the drawer, he had made the remainder into parcels. | He left one on the counter and the I others beside his desk. He had understood that he was to hand the bag | to the postman when it was empty. | The police said the postal author- ' ities took a serious view of the matter, ! and desired it to be a warning that bags that contained mail matter must not be interfered with. The defence claimed that the defendant honestly misunderstood the position and did not know what was required of him. Counsel said a conviction would be serious for the defendant, as he might be struck off the register of Public Accountants. The magistrate found the defendant guilty. As he did not desire to interfere with the defendant earning a liv-

ing, he dealt with him under the First Offenders’ Probation Act, discharging him. He explained to the defendant that it was not like an ordinary dismissal. The defendant had done a very foolish thing, and must have known he would be detected. Application for suppression of the name was refused.