BRASS PLATE STOLEN

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 December 1937, Page 5

BRASS PLATE STOLEN

OFFENCE AT GREYMOUTH A case with some unusual features was heard before Messrs. F. W. Shallcrass and M. J. Fogarty, J’s.P., in the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, to-day, when James Odgen Alexander, alias Farrell, Thomas, Theodore, and Briggs, 43, described as a cook, a native of England, was charged with the theft of a brass plate, valued at 30/-, the property of E. J. Rundle. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr. A.

H. Paterson. The prosecution was conducted by Detective-Sergeant H. E. Knight. Edward James Rundle, agent, whose office is located upstairs in Coates’ Buildings, said that accused called on him about 2 p.m. yesterday, and said that, he was representing a firm of engravers in Wellington. He said that the brass plate outside the building needed renovation. Witness replied that he knew that, 6ut did not want it done at once, as the name on the plate was that of. a firm which had been out of business for some years,

and he intended to get the new name put on the plate, at a later date. Accused offered to quote a price. Witness said that it did not matter, but if accused came along again in a few months, the matter would be considered. Accused thanked witness, and left the office. About half an hour later, Mrs. Rundle discovered that the plate was missing, and .witness then got into touch with the police. The plate cost £4 originally, and witness now valued it at 30/-. Accused had no authority to take the plate away. To Mr. Paterson: Accused said he

thought that the plate could be reversed, and used again. Witness told him he already knew that. He told accused to call again the next time he was in Greymouth, and the matter would be considered, but that nothing would be done at present. The present lettering, “Registered office of E. J. Rundle and Co., Ltd.,” was useless, as that company was defunct, but the plate was worth 30/- to witness. • Mr. Paterson said that ’the actual value of the brass was only about 5/-. Detective-Sergeant Knight said that, in consequence of the complaint from Rundle, he looked for accused, and, about 5 p.m., saw him in Mackay Street. When questioned, accused gave his name as Johnson, and said that he belonged to Nelson. When asked about Rundle’s plate, he at first denied that he had it, but then admitted taking the plate from outside Rundle’s office. He was taken to the police station, where he persisted that his name was Johnson. On being searched, he was found to be in possession of a levy-book, a seaman’s discharge, and other correspondence, in different names. He admitted that his name was really Alexander. The plate was recovered by Detective Davis, to whom accused made a statement. Accused was certainly not straightforward with witness, and he gave a false name on more than one occasion. 1 ’ To Mr. Paterson: When he first approached accused, he told Alexander | that he was a detective. He saw accused take a plate from another doorway, but the matter of that plate was not being questioned by witness. Ac-

cused said that he ari'ived in Greymouth about midday, yesterday. Detective Davis produced a statement made by accused, in which Alexander said that he was a renovator of brass plates,, and a ship’s cook. He said he had no fixed abode, and came from Murchison to Greymouth, in search of brass plate work. He called at Rundle’s office, and gave a quote for renovating the brass plate. Rundle said that the firm named on the plate was extinct. Accused said he explained that the plate could be reversed, and Rundle told him to call on his next visit to Greymouth. He took the plate from the doorway, with a view to finding out whether it could be reversed satisfactorily. He had noauthority to take the plate away, but intended to return'it, and give Rundle a quote. Detective Davis said that accused first gave his name as Thomas Henry Johnson. To Mr. Paterson: Accused had in his possession a plate from the Union Bank. Rundle’s plate was in the back portion of a shop -and w,as hidden from the public. It was in a different room from the Union Bank plate. To Mr. Shallcrass: Accused showed witness where Rundle’s plate was.

“ABSOLUTE SUICIDE.” For the accused, Mr. Pa'terson said that Alexander whs doing brass plate work. He saw Rundle, and suggested reversing the plate, but Rundle did not say he would have it done at once. Accused took the plate off, to have a look at it. If he had intended to steal the plate, such an action would be absolute suicide, because he had seen Rundle and had talked about the plate. There would be no difficulty in getting him with it. The most, logical explanation. was that given by accused, that he merely took the plate to see how deep the lettering was, and what it would cost to fix it up. As to the giving of a wrong name, accused had been in trouble before, for false pretences, and he did not wish to be connected with theft. The brass in the plate was worth only 5/-. and it would be ridiculous for accused to steal it, and thus risk the possibility of losing other work. The. plate could not be used for anyone but Rundle, as the letters were embedded in it. Accused said that he saw the plate, and offered to renovate it for 17/6, but Rundle pointed out that the company was non-existent. Accused suggested that the name of the new company could be put on the back, but Rundle said he did not intend having it done at present. When he took it away, accused saw that the letters on the plate were cut deeper than he anticipated, and it was impossible to have new letters put on the other side. He took the plate away with the intention of bringing it back. Meanwhile, he got work for the Union Bank, and had an appointment with the manager of the Provident Insurance Company, with the result that, before he could return Rundle’s plate, he was interviewed by Detective-Sergeant Knight. He made a mistake, in taking the plate away without authority. Havingbeen in trouble before, he was scared. He admitted that he lost his head, and told a pack of lies about himself,'-but his statement about the plate was absolutely true. He had gone straight recently. The brass in the plate was worth about 5/-. If Rundle tried to sell it, he would perhaps be offered less than 5/-. To the Detective-Sergeant: He had been doing brass plate work for four or five years, on his own account, all over New Zealand. He could cut a plate. He had only one tool in his kit at present, but it was only a. question of buying others. He was not an engraver, but professed to be a brass plate renovator. He admitted that he got into trouble in 1932, for the theft

of a gold watch at Stillwater. He took Rundle’s plate away in . good faith. He had too much to lose, to steal things. He gave a false name as he was scared, as the result of his previous offences. He was not proud of his record. He admitted his list of seven previous convictions for forgery and uttering, credit by fraud, and false pretences. He had been a. free man since September this year. To Mr. Paterson: He had renovated brass plates in Greymouth on previous occasions, including one for Mr. Paterson.

To Mr. Shallcrass: He did not think of asking Rundle’s permission to examine the plate, until after he took it.

The Court had no doubt at all that accused intended to steal the plate, said Mr. Shallcrass. In view of his previous convictions, and the unsatisfactory nature of the present, case, they had decided that he must be convicted, and he would be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment in Paparua Prison.

Accused said that he had promised to erect the plate at the Union Bank, this morning, and he asked to be allowed to do that work.

The Detective-Sergeant said that the matter would be attended to.