YOUTHFUL CRIMINAL.

Grey River Argus, 21 June 1927, Page 7

YOUTHFUL CRIMINAL.

Brewer Before the Court. CHARGE OF CONVERTING CARS TO HIS OWN USE. A SENTENCE OF SIX MONTHS. A young man named George Huia Brewer, who during his brief visit to the West Coast became quite a popular figure in social circles, until he displayed his weakness for taking other people’s motor cars, appeared before Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on a charge that he did on June 11th., at Taipo, unlawfully and without colour of right, but not so as to be guilty of theft, within the mean ing of the Act, convert to his use one motor car, valued at £250, the property of Stanley Gray. A similar charge was made in respect to a car of the same make belonging to Thomas Learmont.

On the application of Detective Murch a charge of stealing a motor car and the latter charge of “converting to his own use” were withdrawn. Detective Murch stated that accused was serving a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment for breaking, entering and theft. He had broken prison at Wellington, and came to the West Coast on the night of June 10th. The same night he had broken into Mr. Learmont’s garage, Shakespeare St., and stolen his car. He had then driven it to Taipo. While in Taipo accused had seen another car in a shed of a similar make—an Overland Whippet—the property of Stanley Gray, and knowing that the police were on the look out for him, he had exchanged the cars and *»lm altered the numbers of Gray’s car and taken with it, eight gallons of benzine He had then driven the car to Westport, where he stayed for a short period, and later came back as far as Cronadun. On the way he had driven the car < v?r the bank. The car was eventually pulled cn to the road again by one of Now man’s lorries. Accused was arrested by Constable Hill at Inangahua JunctLm. Learmont’s car was not damaged, but Gray’s car had slight damages to the agin.; r.ad windscreen, amounting .o about £l5. In reply to the Magistrate Detective vlurch said that accused was about 21 ears cf age. In reply to the Magistrate accused aid he had nothing to say.

The Magistrate said that as accused had evidently been unable to secure probation on the previous occasion when jrought before the Court, and it was .pparently “a bad case.” Accuse 1 would be sentenced to three months’ mprisonment on each charge, to be cunulative and in addition to the senence he was already serving. Accused would of course have to answer a further charge of escaping from prison.