CARGO PILFERING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18572, 26 November 1920, Page 5

CARGO PILFERING.

A FIREMEN SENTENCED. Mr S. E. Al’Cartliy, S.M., presided at a special sitting of the Lyttelton Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon when Thomas Gordon Graham (Air Sargent), a fireman on Jbc c.s. Storm, was charged with stealing at Lyttelton a case, of port wine, valued at £2, the property of the Canterbury Steam Ship Company. Alex. Casey, chief engineer of the s.s. Storm, stated that the accused, on the night in question, was on watch between 8 p.m. and midnight. He saw' accused lift a box in bis arms but did not know what the box contained. Later he'saw, the accused and told him to put the case back in the hold. He did not see anything in the forecastle. When witness entered the. forecastle accused told him to seo whether the case was still there. Accused said that he had placed the ease in the hold, which witness believed to be correct as the man was of good character. To Air Sargent: He reported the matter to the mate, who knew about it, however. The mate did not take any steps to report the matter, at lenst not to his knowledge. That night the lighting system broke down and It was ten minutes before a temporary light was fitted.

To Senior Sergeant Jackson: To tho best of his knowledge when he saw- the accused with tho case the lighting system was out.

Gerald Foster, an able seaman on the s.s. Storm, stated that he saw’ the accused put, a case back in hold at about 9.30 on the night of November 19- The case bad not, been interfered with as far as he could see.

To the Magistrate: He saw the accused put the case in the hold on the right hand side. The cargo was up to within three feet of the top of the hatch.

Constable Hodgins stated that when he met Graham in London Street he spoke to him about the ease of wine and then took him to the police station. He told Graham what the chief engineer had reported to him. Graham denied knowledge of the case. Subsequently Graham stated that ho found the case near the forecastle door and had taken it back and placed it in the hold. Giving evidence on his own bchajf, accused stated that he found a ease of wine by the door of the forecastle at about 8 p.ni., when he was going on watch, and later put it in the hold. He had already placed it in the hold when the engineer requested him to do ro- The case to his knowledge had not been opened. The mate hnd not spoken to him in reference to the wine and he thought the matter had dropped. When accosted by the police he thought it better to deny all knowltedge of the case. The statement made by the chief engineer that he had said tljat he would put the case hack when the coast was clear was untrue. The engineer did not seo him put it back. The Bench said that the case of port wine was worth £2. There were various methods of stealing, but it was usually made by taking or removing something with the intention of depriving the owner of the property. The Court-, to convict must have clear proof, and if there was any reasonable doubt the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. The chief engineer had said he had seen a case removed from the hold to the forecastle and the Bench was satisfied that an attempt to steal had taken place. Consideration would be given to the fact that the case had been returned to the hold of the ship, and accused would therefore be treated with leniency. He would he committed and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment.