IMPUDENT THEFT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1076, 24 July 1924, Page 5

IMPUDENT THEFT

REMOVAL OF MOTOR TYRE.

ACCUSED SENT TO GAOL.

Leonard Herbert Perry, who was yesterday remanded on two charges of alleged theft of motor cars from Wellington, made a further appearance at the local Police Court to-day when, before Messrs J, Nairn and J. A. McLeavey, J.’sP., he was charged on two counts: (1) That, on July 12, at Palmerston North, he stole a motor tyre, tube and rim, value £4 10s, tho property of Frederick William Franks; and (2) 'that, on or about July 12, at Palmerston North, he stole a motor-car pump, value £1 10s, tho property of Frederick William Franks. , Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. Frederick William Franks stated that, on July 12, ho parked his motor car in the Square, and on returning to the stand about an hour later discovered that the articles mentioned in the charges were missing. Accused was sitting in a car which was parked next to witness’s on the stand, .and witness mentioned his loss to accused, who was seriously concerned, remarking that, if he liad been victimised like that it would have “hit him” very hard. Accused also said, added witness, that he had been sitting in his own car for about five minutes before witness arrived, and that it was a wonder “they had not taken His (accused’s) travelling rug.” That remark wa3 in reference to the person or persons who had removed the articles from witness’s cur.

Continuing, witness said: “The accused then got out of his car ancl was most sympathetic about my loss. He carne round to the rear of my car and suddenly exclaimed that he, too, had lost his spare tyre, remarking, ’They have taken mine, too.’ ”

Witness made a complaint to the police, and accused also reported the loss of his own spare tyre. Constable Murch deposed that ho had been called to Bunnythorpe to enquire about another motor car and on the back of the vehiclo ho saw a spare rim and tyre which corresponded the one which had been described by Mr Franks as having been stolen from his vehicle. The rim and tyre (produced) were recognised by Mr Franks as his property. Accused had nothing to say except that ho denied that the __tyro and pump were Mr Franks’ property, affirming that they were his. The bench entered a conviction on each charge und sentenced accused to ono month’s imprisonment on each information, the sentences to be concurrent.