MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 February 1932, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at to-day’s sitting of the Greymouth Court. , A statutory first offender, caught on licensed premises after hours, without lawful excuse, was convicted and ordered to pay costs. Arthur Adam was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment, in Wellington gaol, warrant not to issue for seven days, for disobedience «of a maintenance order, made at Greymouth on March 26, 1928, for the payment of 2/6 per week, towards the support of his mother. The arrears amounted to £2 7s 6d to October 5 . With arrears amounting £22 5s on a maintenance order of 12 6s per week, for the support of a child, Norman Weir was,sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment in Nelson gaol, the' warrant not to issue for seven days. The maintenance order was made, on July 24, 1931. An affiliation order was made against Robert Smith, ,of Blackball, the payment being fixed at 12/6 per week. Defendant was also ordered to pay £l2 3s 8d confinement expenses, past maintenance 16/-, solicitor’s fee £3 3s, and witnesses’ expenses, to be arranged. THEFT ADMITTED. Appearing on remand, a young man was charged with the theft, at Greymouth, on or about January 7, of three films and one razor strop, valued' at 9/-, the property of John Nicholson Smith; also, on or about January 23, of one watch-guard and gold medal, and a pair of tennis shoes, of the total value of' £6, the property of Arthur Botting. Accused pleaded guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Detective Murch stated that the articles were stolen from the leftluggage office at the Greymouth railway station. The first complaint, that goods were missing, was received about five weeks ago. Further complaints were received, and as a result of enquiries, accused was interviewed, and the stolen goods were found in his possession. He admitted having taken them from packages left in the office. It was rather a mean sort of theft. There were about twenty men employed in the railway offices at the time of the thefts, and every man was brought ur.der suspicion. It was a most difficult class of theft to sheet home. Acct sed- was single, and nothing previously was known against him. The articles had been recovered.

Mr T. F. Brosnan, who appeared for accused, said that the latter was cnly 23 years of age, and his upbringing had been rather unfortunate. He was taken from school when in the fifth standard, and for the next twelve months was working on a farm. His father died- when accused was about 14 years of age. His two sisters were out in service. Accused went to Christchurch, and stayed for a short time with his aunt. He had been employed on a milk round, and in training stables, before he secured his recent employment, which he had held for the past five years. So far as the thefts were concerned, the first goods were taken from a suitcase, which was half open. Accused saw the articles, and fell to the temptation. The second theft was from a bag, which accused admitted he opened,. Mr Brosnan strongly urged the S.M. to take into consideration the fact that the goods had been recovered, the age of the accused, and the fact that he had lost his position, and felt his present

situation very keenly indeed. Accused had had a difficult life; possibly, his training had not been obtained in. the best circumstances, anc

such a boy would have to possess very strong moral fibre to keep out in! trouble. He would now have to leave Greymouth, and seek a position elsewhere. Mr Brosnan suggested that accused be admitted to probation, and that his name be suppressed. The S-M. adjourned the case until to-morrow morning, pending the report of the Probation Officer. Bail was renewed.