THEFT CHARGE

Grey River Argus, 18 November 1941, Page 6

THEFT CHARGE

GREY LABOURER REMANDED. William James Williams, a labourer of Cobden, (Mr. W. D. Taylor) who appeared at the Magistrates Court, Greymouth, before Mr. G. G. Chisholm S.M. yesterday morning, to answer a charge of theft, on October 19, of a quantity of bedding, cooking utensils and tools to a total value of £l6, the property of Albert Aiderton, and the New Zealand Government, Railways Department, was granted a further remand until to-day,' to allow the Probation Officer (Senior Sergeant G. F. Bonisch) to make a report. Defendant elected to be dealt with summarily. , Detective Sergeant H. E. Knight who appeared for the police said that on October 19, the Railway Department had a special carriage in the Greymouth yards. Part of the carriage was fitted up as being quarter,? and part as a plumber’s workshop. Aiderton, who was a plumber employed by the Railway Department, and lived in the carriage, left it on October 17, until the following Sunday. He left the door locked but when he returned he found that both doors had been forced and his compartment entered. All his sleeping gear and cooking utensils had been removed and a large number of plumbing tools. In all goods amounting to £3O had been taken but a quantity of tools were found in nearby bushes. These were part of the plumbing equipment. The police were notified and Constable W. T. Roughan investigating the matter was led to a hut at Maimai. He saw a number of utensils in the hut which was occupied by defendant, but was unable to identify them, defendant stating that he had secured them from his former work at Buller Gorge. Aiderton was taken to Maimai where he identified the articles as those taken from the carriage. The accused then made a statement and gave the police every assistance. He had taken them to secure a position. Accused who was married with nine children, had very little to come and go on and only once before had been before the court as a result of dishonesty. As a result of defendant’s refusal to admit that the articles were stolen, the police had incurred the expense of £3. Mr. Taylor said .that the previous charge had been in 1934, seven years ago and since then defendant had behaved himself. He was married and the eldest child was aged 12 years, six were at school and three were still too young. Defendant’s home was like that of a pauper. He had been given a job near Reefton, which involved batching. He did not have the material and knowing that there were goods in the carriage, foolishly took them and went to Reefton. Since his last conviction he had kept out of trouble. Drink was not his trouble. The Magistrate:—The ciilcumstances are certainly special. Before I decide I will ask for a report from the Probation Officer. The Detective Sergeant said that a report would be made available for the next morning. Defendant was remanded until the next day. bail being allowed for two sureties of £25, bn the condition that defendant report to the police daily. An order was made for the restitution of the stolen goods.