REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

Grey River Argus, 23 March 1940, Page 10

REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

KUMARA LABOURER’S THEFTS Valdamar Rasmussen, aged 30 a labourer appeared on remand, at the Magistrate’s Court Greymouth on Thursday charged (1) that, on or about January 5, 1940, at Kumara, he did steal a bicycle, valued at £4, the property of Ivan May; (2) that, between January 15 and 27, 1940, at Kumara, he did commit the theft of one tin of Longues, two tins of pork and beans, .live tins of sardines, one tin of cocoa, one tin of marmalade jam, and fifty-nine pennies, of a total value of 15s the property of Edward Roberts.

Accused pleaded guilty to both charges, and elected to be dealt with summarily.

Senior-Sergeant G. Bonisch said that on January 5 last a boy named May left his bicycle outside his father’s shop in Kumara, from where it was stolen. No complaint was made to the police at the time, but on March 17, May saw another' man named Lalor riding a bicycle which had 'on it a light which May recognised as his own. He reported the matter to Constable S'tudholme, who interviewed Lalor. The last-named said that it had been lent to him by accused, and on being interviewed, accused admitted that he had taken the bicycle and dismantled it, as he required parts for his own bicycle, and could not affert to buy them. Parts valued at £2 10s had been recovered, but 30s worth had not been recovered. Accused was married, with three young children. They were practically destitute and were living on charitable aid or assistance from other people,, and it was hard to know what to do with accused.

In regard to the second charge, a man named Roberts had a house at Kumara which he occupied only at holiday periods, and it was always partly furnished and contained foodstuffs. Roberts spent Christmas at the house and left at the New Year to return to hl's work in South Westland. On January 27 a neighbour, who kept an eye on the house, noticed that a window was open, and an investigation disclosed that the back door had been broken open and the goods mentioned in the charge stolen. Accused, at the time, lived about 200 yards away. He was suspected, but on being interviewed, denied all knowledge of the matter. He was interviewed again later at Reefton, but again denied being responsible. However, after the theft of the bicycle had been discovered, he admitted that he had stolen the goods from the house. At the time that the offence was committed, his wife was in hospital and he was at home with the three young children, with no money and nothing to feed them. He said that he: stole the groceries to feed himself and the children. He had one previous conviction for theft, at Invercargill ten years ago, when he was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if call upon. In reply to the Magistrate, accused said that he had nothing to say. Pressed for an explanation as to why he was not working, he stated that lie was working on| the No. 13 scheme, but when the offence took place his wife was in hospital and he had to come home to look after the children. He had been up to Big River to work for eight days, but the worl<j underground did not agree with him. The Magistrate said that it was very difficult to know what to do with accused, as it was not his first offence. He thought that possibly, he might admit him to probation, a condition being that he accepted work. The Senior-Sergeant: He might be hard to place in work. It appears to me that he is not fond of work.

The Magistrate said that it would be no use inflicting a fine, as he could not pay it, and it would be no use sending him to gaol, from the point of view of his wife and children. The Senior-Sergeant said that he understood that the conditions in the home had been brought to the notice of the Child Welfare Department. It was an unfortunate case.

Questioned by the Magistrate., Constable Studholme said that, from information received in Kumara he did not think there was much chance of accused getting a job there. The Magistrate said that he would convict accused and remand him for sentence for a month. At the end of that time he could get an idea as to whether accused had attempted to get work. It would give him a chance to make good and provide for his wife and family and, if at the end of the month, tlie report was promising he would give him a chance.

An order was made for the return of the bicycle part to the owner, the Magistrate remarking that, if at the end of the month, he decided to give accused a chance, an order would be made for the restitution of the value of the items in the other charge.