CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7222, 23 April 1884, Page 6

CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

Yesterday a man named Francis John Ormandy was committed for trial on a charge of robbing his employers, Messrs M. Harris and Son, of goods to the value in the aggregate of about .£2OO. The case was rather a peculiar one : the man appears to have been employed as salesman, and taking advantage of the place of business being closed on Saturday (the Messrs Harris are Jews) he went in and took up any parcel of small goods he could lay his hands on—G.B.D. pipes, a microscope, plated knives and forks, work-box fittings, and several boxes of those small coloured glass flower - holders, such as are used for the button-hole, Christmas cards, bouquet papers and holders, and fancy goods innumerable. This is the varied list he is accused of stealing, and the evidence of Mr Harris was that Ormandy had confessed to him that he had carried on this practice for many months, being induced to continue by a man whose name—no one seems to know exactly whether it is “ Mark Boll,” or “ Ball Marks,” or simply “ Marks,” but he lived in the shades of Salisbury Grove, off Madras street north. It used to be “ subject for congratulation ” that in Christchurch there was no such thing as a “ fence,” by which is meant not a harmless collection of posts and rails, but a place where thieves could get lid of stolen property, easily and with some advantage to themselves. Now it came out in evidence that when Ormandy had made up a parcel on' some Saturday, he took this to Mark 8011, whom he met by appointment near the A 1 Hotel, and whatever the package contained, Mark gave him £1 for. it, and this went on till goods amounting to about £3O in value had accumulated in Mark’s house, where they were found by the detectives, and the majority identified by Messrs Harris and Son as theirs, while at the same time they said that they were sure that Marks had not bought these goods from them. But in fairness to Mark 8011, who was yesterday committed for trial on a charge of receiving stolen property, it should he stated that he had, up to about 14 months ago, been dealing with Messrs Harris and Son, and buying goods from them, and the case would he rather weakened by the fact that Mr Henry Harris, who kept the hooks of the firm and took an active part ir reference to the sale of goods, said he c.,uld not tell what goods had been sold to Marks.