PERSPICACIOUS CONSTABLE

Evening Star, Issue 22084, 18 July 1935, Page 10

PERSPICACIOUS CONSTABLE

STOLEN BUNDS TRACED THEFTS FROM UNOCCUPIED HOUSES Smart detection by Constable Williamson in connecting a change of blinds in a Dale street house with the theft of blinds from the unoccupied Wakari schoolhouse in April led to the conviction of Robert Leslie Bowles, of theft in the Police Court, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.,‘to-day. Bowles, who was represented by Mr B. A, Quelch, denied the charge, but expert evidence definitely connected the blinds, which were made in Dunedin 11 years ago. He later pleaded guilty to the theft of curtains from another unoccupied house. '

The first charge against Bowles was that between March 30 a nd April Ihe stole seven blinds, valued at £3 10s 6d, the property of the Otago Education Board. Chief-detective, Young said that the Wakari Schoolhouse, at 138 Sheffield street, was entered while it was temEorarily unoccupied, and seven green olland blinds were stolen from the windows —one from the front bedroom, one from the side bedroom, two from the dining room, two from the kitchen, and one from the scullery. At that time Bowles was living at Dale street, about a quarter of a mile away from the schoolhouse, The thefts were reported to the Roslyn Police, and Constable Williamson noticed that the blinds on the windows at accused s home had been changed, the blinds appearing to the constable to be similar to those removed from the schoolhouse. Messrs'Scott and Wilson, who had made the blinds for the schoolhouse, supplied full particulars ot them. Seen by Detective Taylor and Constable Excell, Bowles was told that the police had reason to believe that the blinds in his house were identical with those taken from the schoolhouse, and Bowles said; “ I have no explanation to make.” He was further pressed to make an explanation, and he replied; “ If you say they are stolen, 1 will make my explanation to the magistratG. 0 The blinds were taken from the house and were found to be almost identical with the stolen property. The accused was brought to the detective office, where the chief detective impressed upon him the necessity for giving an explanation if he had come into possession of the blinds innocently. However, he refused to make any explanation. He thought that the police would he able to establish definitely that the blinds were those removed from the schoolhouse. They coincided in material and different sizes, and fitted the schoolhouse windows. One blind which fitted the scullery window was greasy from hanging near the gas stove, and the end near the cooker was also scorched. The blinds also bore, paint and paste marks, _ caused when the schoolhouse was being repapered. Moreover, Mr Scott would definitely identify the blind# as having been made by his firm. _ In only one particular, the roller, did the blinds differ from those left in the schoolhouse. It would be shown that the rollers had been altered to fit the fixtures in accused's house. The onus was on the accused to show that he had obtained possession of the blinds innocently. Evidence was , given by James Maxwell Briggs, who was acting head master at Wakari, Herbert Beadle, traveller for Messrs Scott and Wilson, John Wjlsqn, Constable Williamson, and Detective Taylor, Mr Quelch submitted that the •prosecution had failed to prove that the blinds found in Bowles’s house were the property of the Education Board. . Mr Bundle: Do you desire to call evidence P

Mr Quelc.b: No, sir. Possession of recently stolen goods threw the, onus on the possessor to give an explanation, said His Worship. After hearing the expert evidence, there was ho reasonable doubt that the blinds taken from accused’s house were those stolen from the schoolhouse. Constable Williamson was to be congratulated on bis perspicacity. Accused had declined to give any explanation of his possession of the stolen property, and would he convicted of theft

Bowles then pleaded guilty to the theft, on October 24 last, of curtains valued at £2 10s, the property of Basil H. Howard.

Mr Young said the theft took place in an unoccupied house in Ohan street, owned by Dr Howard. He had loft curtains and linoleums, valued at £ls, In the house, but they were stolem When investigations were being mad© into the Wakari blinds thefts, Detective Taylor found the curtains in Bowles’s house. It was reasonable to assume that the person who stole the curtains also stole the other goods, but, as proof was Tacking, accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Accused was a married man and a relief worker. He was likely to lose his relief through his unsatisfactory conduct and work. He was before the court in 1921 for being a bookmaker and laying totalisator odds. The thefts were a, particularly mean class of offence.

Mr Quelch said accused’s circumstances were very unfortunate. Ho had been on relief works for four years. His wife was in delicate health, and he had four young children. This was the first time he had been before the court on a charge of dishonesty. Accused was remanded in custody till Monday, the probation officer to supply a report.