MONTH’S GAOL

Grey River Argus, 1 February 1944, Page 2

MONTH’S GAOL

For Bicycle Theft AT GREYMOUTH A sentence of one month’s hard labour in Paparua Prison was imposed on John James Bourke, a waterside worker, of Greymouth, who was convicted yesterday on a charge of stealing a gent’s pushcycle, the property of J. P. Rooney, on or about August 17, 1943, ,at Greymouth. In imposing sentence, the Magistrate (Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M.) said that in a case of this sort he could not consider a fine or even probation. “To my mind,” he concluded, “the theft was done with great cunning and in order to gain money.” Mr W D. Taylor appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. Senior Sergeant G. Holt, outlining the case for the police, said that the bicycle was stolen from the Marist Brothers’ School on August 17. The machine was recovered at an auction sale and recognised as similar to that stolen from Rooney, apart from certain structural changes. The number of the cycle had been filerl off but were later brought back chemically at Wellington. Accused was. interviewed and said that the frame was given him by a neighbour, M’r Webster, while the forks and other accessories were obtained from cycles owned by him. When Questioned Webster said he had given accused four frames but the one on the cycle in o.uestion was not one of them. When told that the number on the frame proved it to be Rooney’s, defendant still maintained the frame was given him, but a day later stated that he had picked it up on a rubbish dump. The theft of cycles was prevalent in Greymouth and they were very difficult to trace when defaced as in the present case. John Patrick Rooney, .a waterside worker, said that when his cycle was stolen on August 17 from the school, he reported the matter to the police to whom he submitted a description of his cycle, with its number —A 43396. „ He made unfruitable enquiries but on December 9 was told that the cycle had been seen at Arthur’s auction rooms. He went to the sale and came to the conclusion that the cycle for sale was his own with certain alterations. He recognised the reflectors and other accessories, but the ■ number was unreadable, having been filed off. The handles had been reversed and different grips put on. He recognised many other outstanding features of the machine, and said new mudguards had been attached. The cycle was worth £5. To Mr Taylor: The cycle was left in the cycle stand of the school at one o’clock in the afternoon bv his son. The stand was well back from the street. The machine had gone after school. A bag on the cycle had been thrown to the ground. The defendant had promised to get even with witness for a misunderstanding. Witness purchased the cycle for £z. from E. T’ones. There were many frames around town similar to his. He had lost the book, in which he had entered the number of his cycle before Christmas. He could remem-1 her the cycle’s number. Some of the , accessroies by which he recognised the cycle were quite common. Allen William Hancock, manager . of Kitchingham’s Cycle Shop, Mawhera Quav. said defendant visited him on December 7, 1943. to have ; his cycle (the one produced in Court) ■ put in order. It required a new rear mudguard, a brake expander, , and another alteration to the rear I hub. He had previously sold defen-, dant a front mudguard (similar to ■ the one on the cycle produced). He also sold him black and white enamel, j The lamp bracket was not' an ordin-. ary fitting. Defendant nut quite .a ■ number of cycles together. ! In evidence, Alexander Thompson Webster, a wharf labourer, said he had given to defendant four old ( cycle frames about October or No- ; vember. They were in poor condi-1 tion. The frame of the cycle in Court was not one of those he had given accused. Senior Sergeant G. G. Kelly, Arms Advisory Officer, Wellington._ said that he’ had recovered the obliterated number on the exhibited cycle. It I was A 43396. The machine produced was the one concerned. There was no doubt in his mind as to the number.

Constable G. S. Murray of Greymouth, said he had received a complaint of the theft of a cycle from Pooney. The number was A 43396. He inspected a cycle at Arthur’s Auction Room and took it to the Police Station. The cycle was offered for sale by defendant who in a statement admitted this and said he had secured the frame from Webster, while he obtained the accessories from other cycles or had had. them for some time. He had not noticed the number of the cycle. He valued it at £8 10s. Witness then forwarded the cycle to Wellington. When next interviewed, defendant said the bicycle was his property. However Ihe following day defendant stopped him in the street and said he had made a mistake and he had got the frame from a dump at Karoro. He did not give any excuse for having forgotten' for so long. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Mr. Taylor said that defendant had picked up the frame from a dump at Karoro and evidence would be brought to show that he had been seen doing so. He had had several frames at his home and had become confused as to which one he had used in the formation of the cycle. He saw Constable Murray as soon as I he realised his mistake. The cycle belonging to Rooney was taken] from a public school and it was extremely unlikely that defendant would go, himself, to the school and take that cycle from the midst of the others. It was probable that the cycle had been taken and the wheels and other accessories removed while | the frame was disposed of in a dump from which accused had taken it. Defendant giving evidence, said that he found the frame on the Karoro rubbish dump on December 14. It was a bit rough, as if it had been out in the weather for some time. When he picked up the frame there was another person in the vicinity. He did not know him at the time, hut the man had answered an advertisement. He cleaned up the frame for painting, preparatory to selling it. He had six or seven, frames at his home. He put the cycle up for sale and. when lie went to collect his monev found it had been taken to the Police Station where he made a statement in which he stated that the frame was given him by Mr. Webster. He had another frame at home and' had got mixed up. He was nowhere near the Marist School on August 17. - i To the Senior Sergeant: He found only the frame- at the dump. Even after he had been told that the number had been identified, he said that the frame was given him by Webster. He was a victim of circumstances. He did not consider the frame valuable enough to take to the police, though he reported the discoverv of .a pair of wheels To the Magistrate: He did not know what type of frame it was. There were no forks on the frame, but they were from a frame secured from Mr. Webster. Robert Bruce Steel, a miner, of Greymouth, said he knew defendant slightly by sight, and had seen him at. Karoro rubbish tin on December 12.' He noticed defendant take away a dark cycle frame. It was not a rare thing to see a cycle frame on a dump. He made contact with defendant by an advertisement in a neWsoaper. He could not recognise the frame the defendant picked up. Recalled, Mr. Hancock said that

Mr. E. Tones bought a B.S.A. cycle from Kitchingham in 1938 and the cycle’s number was 17549 over T. He also purchased a sports cycle in. 1939 numbered I.E. 58961. The Senior Sergeant said that there .was no doubt that. Rooney had supplied correct numbers when his cycle was stolen. Mr. Taylor submitted that there was no proof to warrant a conviction. The Magistrate said that the evidence certainly connected defendant with the possession of the cycle which had been .stolen from R.ooney. The evidence concerning the cycle’s number proved that and he‘was satisfied that it w.as the same cycle stolen from Rooney which defendant tried to account for by saying he found it. . Accused, Mr. Taylor pointed out, was a married man With six children and this charge, was the first, of tis kind to be brought against him.