OWNERSHIP OF A BICYCLE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3345, 11 October 1911, Page 9

OWNERSHIP OF A BICYCLE.

A CASE AT COURT.

POLICE PREFER CHARGE OF

THEFT

A charge of theft of a bicycle was preferred against a .man named John VVilliam Foster, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr Burnard appeared for the accused, and Detective Mitchell conducted the case for the police. Harry Anderson, cycle agent, stated that on Friday, May 6th, he received a bicycle from the Rev. Mr Blair, of Matawliero, for repair. It was sent in with instructions that it should be returned the following day. The bicycle No. 80,109 (produced) was the one. After repairing it he placed it outside for the coachman to pick up aboiit noon. The coachman did not take it and witness last saw the bicycle on the footpath between 9.30 and 10 p.m. on Saturday. Witness did not miss the machine until the Monday when the coachman called for it. He advertised in both local papers, but did not see the bicycle again until one Saturday afternoon at the Victoria Domain, when he ascertained that it was in the possession of a Mr Webster. Mr Webster gave his name and address, and also the name and address of the person from whom he bought it. Accused called at witness’s shop about on the following Monday. He said he. •ad been talking to Mr Webster, and they had decided to give witness the bicycle back. Accused said he had bought the bicycle from some man he id not know 'for £2. He said the purchase had taken place about halfpast twelve at night. . Accused further told witness that he had had a couple of drinks at a “smoko” when a man came up to him and asked him if he would buy the bicycle. The man asked for £2. Accused said lie gave him £2, but did not get a receipt, nor did he know the man. Accused said he had kept the bicycle for a long while until he thought of going away. Witness told him that the matter was in the hands of the police. The present value of the machine was about £ls.

to Mr Burnard: Accused appeared perfectly frank and genuinely sorry for the inconvenience that had been caused. He (witness) could not, however, say that the explanation appeared to be truthfully given. Witness did not say to the accused that he believed his explanation. He had several conversations with Mr Webster in regard to the bicycle, and witness had said that he did not doubt the truth of the explanation given. Witness was sure that the accused had said that he was sorry he had bought the machine. George William Webster, compositor, stated that he knew the accused, and was on friendly terms with him. Witness had visited accused’s house about three times. He first went about tinend of July, and on that night he saw the bicycle (produced) at the horse. Accused had told him that he did not ride the bicycle much, and witness asked, “Will you sell it to me.” Accused asked what witness was willing to give, and after a conversation on the matter, in which witness offned £3, accused said he would not sell the bicycle at that time. Accused had told him he had bought the bicycle from a man in Gladstone road on the night of the Typographical Union's social. About a fortnight later witness learnt that the accused was leaving Gisborne, and had told him that he would buy the bicycle from him. After several conversations on the subject accused sold him the bicycle on Saturday, August 19th, in consequence of witness having asked accused why he did not sell the bicycle, as he never rode it. On the way home accused said he would sell the bike for £3. Witness purchased the bicycle that evening and got a receipt. He did not pay the £3 until the following Monday. The accused said at any time witness was required to give up the bicycle he would return the £3 he had paid for it. Accused gave him the statement in writing on the following Monday. On Saturday, 23rd September, witness took the bicycle to the football ground, and on that day the bicycle was claimed on behalf of Mr. Anderson by the gatekeeper. Witness did not see the accused until Monday morning, when he told him that he had been asked to give up the bicycle, as it belonged to Mr. Anderson. ' Accused said, . “Very well; you’ll have to give up the bike,” and they agreed to go to Mr. Anderson’s shop that day. Detective Mitchell interviewed both witness and accused on that day, and he (witness) went to the police station and told Detective Mitchell all about the bike. The accused had not at any time asked witness to destroy the guarantee. The envelope and its contents were marked “Strictly private,” and on that account witness did not tell the detective about it. • Continuing, witness, in reply to Mr. Burnard, said that the suggestion that he should first purchase the bicycle came from him. When accused told witness that the bicycle had been stolen he also told him to hand the receipt to Detective Mitchell. He later told witness to hand the guarantee over to the police. Witness had not told Detective Mitchell of the guarantee prior to Foster making his statement. The accused’s conduct from the time Avitness informed him of the inquiries after the bicycle were such as he Avould have expected from an honest man, and he was quite Avilling to give the bicycle up if the real owner could be found. Mr. Anderson had told Avitness that he did not doubt Avhat accused had said, and said that as far as he Avas concerned he did not Avish to press the matter, but it Avas in the hands of the police, and must go on. Re-examined by Detective Mitchell, Avitness said that he went to the police station about 7.50 p.m. on the 25th inst., and made a statement. It was not a fact that accused had gone into the detective’s office as witness left it. Detective Mitchell: I Avould like your Worship to treat this Avitness as a hostile Avitness.

His Worship: I do not think there is anything to show hostility just now. Detective Mitchell stated that on September 25th he took possession of the bicycle from the last witness. At his invitation accused went to the station, and witness interviewed him regarding the bicycle. Witness told him that he desired a truthful statement as to how 'he became possessed of it, and that he did not know what action, if any, would be taken until his report went in. The accused then made a statement, in which he stated that he had left Robb’s Hall on the night in question about 11.30 p.m., and had stood talking to others on an adjacent corner until the Post Office clock struck midnight. The purchase of the bicycle as brought out in evidence was also dealt with in the statement. To Mr. Burnard: Accused was not with witness for two hours at the station. Accused gave the statement

quite frankly, and did not appear to be keeping anything back. Accused reserved his defence and Avas committed to the Supreme Coxirt for trial. Bail was forthcoming, accused in a personal surety of £SO, and another surety in a similar amount.