MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 23 July 1925, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M.) Police cases were dealt with by Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., at the Hawera Magistrate’s Court to-day. THEFT AND RECEIVING. On a charge of theft of a gold watch, chain and pendant, valued in all at £lO, Alfred It. Gilmore, a young man of 21 years, appeared. On the same set of facts Gordon W. Lett was charged with receiving the goods. Mr o’Dea, who appeared for defendants, pleaded guilty. Constable Tocker, in evidence, said that A. Burgess, a bootmaker in Union street, had complained of the loss of the articles named, and upon making inquiries witness interviewed Gilmore, who made a statement to the effect that he had been passing through Burgess’ shop and he had taken the articles out of the till.

Sergeant Henry said that the two defendants, in company with others, had been to Eltham that day, and had returned at about 6.30 p.m. They tried to get into. the wine shop from the back of the premises, but finding they could not were taking a short cut through Burgess’ shop to the street, when Gilmore took the articles out of the till. Gilmore was a married man with two children, and at the present time was out of employment and living with his mother. He had not been leading an altogether respectable life. Lett was a single _ man, also out of work, and living with bis sister. Mr O’Dea said the actions of both accused had been very foolish, but could be put down to' the fact that they had been in Eltham that day and had got ‘ ‘pretty well fuzzled.” Mr O’Dea referred to an authority which dealt extensively with the effect which alcohol has on the moral system. When the sergeant approached Gilmore the next day it had taken Gilmore some time to recall the fact that he had actually taken the' watch. As far as Lett was concerned he had been a really good fellow until recently, when he had mixed up with a certain set. Mr O’Dea asked for as much clemency as was consistent with justice. The Magistrate said that the effect of alcohol was as Mr O’Dea had mentioned ; it was nothing to comfort the accused, who ought to know the effect of alcohol. He accepted the suggestion, however, that if they had not had alcohol they would not . have acted as they had. The policy of the country was to give probation in order to allow an accused to make good, and he proposed to extend this provision in the present case. Accused, however, need, not look upon it as a “let off.” They would be admitted to probation for two years under strict conditions, and if they broke any of those conditions they would be brought before the court on a new offence, and would also be liable to 12 months’ imprisonment on the present theft. Both accused would also take out prohibition orders covering a period of two years. THEFT ASSUMED. A young man named Frederick Murray appeared charged with receiving a pair of field glasses, yalued at £2oi knowing the same to have been stolen. Accused pleaded guilty. Sergeant Henry said that accused was present at the race meeting held in Hawera 18 month,, ago. Air Cameron. a judge at some race meetings, was also present, and while in the Central Hotel having dinner hung his coat in the hall with the field glasses in the poc-ket. When he returned the glasse s were missing. The glasses were handed to the police by another party, and accused, on being interviewed, admitted having received them from a man whom he did not know and could (not describe. The magistrate said it- wa s reasonable to assume that accused had stolen the glasses. His Worship said that for many years he had been in touch with a mysterious person who lurked about hotels and handed articles to other ?~nle. This person, whom he had never seen, and whom no one could describe, also handed bicycles to respectable citizens. Accused would be convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour in' the Auckland prison. On a charge of failing to “maintain M- wife, accused was ordered to appear at Hamilton on Saturday next. FINE REMITTED. A rehearing was granted in the case of S. W. Wilson, who was recently F.»mcl £3 for failing to register under the Defence Act. Sergeant Henry said that prior to Om court case defendant had made a. satisfactory explanation to an officer, but when ‘the action was brought the officer in question wa s absent in camp. D of emlant”actually had registered. The case was accordingly struck out and the fine remitted.