CARGO BROACHING AT AUCKLAND

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3832, 15 May 1913, Page 5

CARGO BROACHING AT AUCKLAND

SEAMAN’S STARTLING STATE-

MENT. [PRESB ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.] AUCKLAND, May 14. A seaman charged with theft made a rather startling statement in tho Polico Court this morning respecting practices by some of the waterside workers in Auckland. Joseplrßrooks, aged 30 years, admitted a charge that on April 23 lie stole from tho s.s. Navua 12 slip-bodices valued at £3, the property of some person unknown. Chief-Detective McMahon said that Brooks was a seaman on tho Navua and on tho occasion in question ho was in charge of one of tho holds when the ship was being loaded. As one of tho cases was being lowered into the hold, it was damaged and several of the waterside workers engaged in tho hold, seeing tho case damaged, toro off somo of the damaged boards with their doghooks and came across” a'Cardboard box containing slip-bodices. The box was taken anti some of the slip-bodices were given to Brooks, who accepted them without saying anything of tho matter. Ho concealed the bodices below, but when the ship reached Suva, where Natives were engaged in tho hold discharging cargo, he found that the concealed slip-bodices had been taken. The police were unable to bring the matter home to any other person. Asked if he _ had anything to say, Brooks said it was high time the Union Company sent officers to take charge of the holds instead of seamen. Tho wharf-workers in tho hold, he said, simply laughed at the seamen. It a man went up to tell an officer about a matter of pillaging the men in the hold would just fix up tlio case again and deny everything. He had told tho watersiders not to do anything wrong because he would be responsible, and they had just turned round and laughed at him. There were 15,000 men on the wharf in Auckland, and if he got any of them into trouble by reporting them he would have to clear out of Auckland and keep out. Mr E.C. Cutton, S.M.. said that if’ the facts put before him were correct the accused took part in a very serious crime from want of courage, he could not taken into consideration the prisoner’s moral and physical weakness as a reason for refraining from implosing the usual punishment for the crime, and Brooks would probable be better protected by being punished in tho ordinary way than it ho were let go. He would be convicted and sentenced to a month’s hard labor.