THEFT ALLEGED

Franklin Times, Volume XXX, Issue 91, 18 August 1941, Page 3

THEFT ALLEGED

PROCEEDS OF SALE OF CALVES YOUNG MAORI’S OFFENCE . ADMITTED TO PROBATION The theft of £2l 5s Bd, the proceeds of the sale of 00 bobby calves, the property of. his employer, Allan Douglas, was admitted by a young Maori, William Harrison, of Whakatiwai, near Kaiaua, at the Pukekohe Court on Wednesday last before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M. Sergeant T. Kelly said the defendant was first employed by Mr Douglas at £4 a week, free house, free milk and other allowances customary on a farm. It was arranged that defendant should sell the calves and keep the money which was deducted from his wages. For the next season, however, a new arrangement was agreed upon. Defendant’s wages were increased to £5 5s a week with the usual allowances but he was informed not to collect the money for the calves. However he broke this arrangement and collected Ihe proceeds from the sale of 60 bobby calves —£21 5s Sd, and converted the money to his own use. No Authority to Sell Calves Allan Douglas, defendant’s employer, in evidence said defendant had no authority to sell the calves and collect the money.' Detective A. Harris said when interviewed defendant admitted the offence and said that if given a chance he would make restitution.

Mr C. F. Blanchard, for defendant, said the facts were as stated. In asking that defendant be given a chance to rehabilitate himself and placed on probation, he pointed out that Harrison had evidently given satisfactory service during his first year as he was re-engaged at an increased salary. It was indeed a pity that the conditions of employment had been varied as defendant thought the amounts retained would, as hitherto, be deducted from his wages. He now realised his mistake and desired to make good'. He was a married man with a wife and sick child. The Magistrate said that defendant, a well educated young man, had acted very foolishly, and deserved punishment. He had been in an excellent position and yet had frittered it away. He warned defendant that he must go carefully. He reminded him that he had started along the road of crime and if he broke the terms of his probation he wop Id be. brought before the court and punished. Defendant was admitted to probation for two years, ordered to make restitution of the £2l 5s 8d and td pay costs totalling £2 3s 6d. Defendant’s application for the issue of a prohibition order was granted-