MAIL BAG THEFT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 306, 29 November 1927, Page 10

MAIL BAG THEFT

TAYLOR FOUND GUILTY. ON CHARGES OF “RECEIVING.” ' HAMILTON, Nov. 24. William Harold Melville Taylor, aged 36, a land agent’s assistant, was tried in the Supreme Court to-day, on a charge of receiving two cheques, valued at £lB 18s 4d and £lO, knowing them to have been stolen. The charge made against him of stealing a mailbag from the Frankton railway station was withdrawn. It was stated that 1000 postal packets wore included in the missing bag which was dispatched by the afternoon Auckland-Frankton train on September 3. Herbert Frank Mander 6tated that he was on duty on the Frankton Junction Post Office on the evening of September 3. He met the 9.50 p.m. train from Auckland and took the Hamilton mailbags from the train and placed them on a barrow. The mail was left on the platform outside the post office until five o’clock n,ext morning. The bag in question was then missing. He took a rough tally of the mailbags when checking them with the waybill. EFFORTS TO CASH A CHEQUE.

Nicholas Peters, dispatch clerk, employed by a taxi company in Auckland, said that Taylor, whom he knew well, approached him on September 5 and asked him to cash a cheque for £lO for him. Witness saw the cheque, which was drawn by the Brett Printing Company, but ho did not cash it. He later saw Taylor, who said that he had succeeded in cashing the cheque. Witness identified a cheque produced as the one he saw in Taylor’s possession. Witness said that Taylor also showed him a cheque for £lB drawn by Bond and Bond. In reply to witness, Taylor said that a woman had endorsed the cheque for him.

Evidence was given that a-cheque for £lB 18s 4d was posted by Bond and Bond, Auckland, to G. Boyes andiCompany, Hamilton, on Saturday, September 3, and that the cheque was not received. The Brett Printing Company posted a cheque for £lO on the same date to H. C. Baulf, Hamilton. This cheque was not received by. Baulf, but was cashed at a butcher’s: shop in Auckand before payment was stopped by the bank.^ Helen Unswortli, cashier in an Auckland butchery establishment, said that a cheque for £lO 0s sd, produced, containig Baulf’s signature, was presented in the shop by Taylor on the afternoon of September 5. She asked_ him if lie was Baulf and he said “Yes.” She had identified Taylor amongst 12 others at the police station. ACCUSED’S STATEMENT. Detective Sweeney said that on September 16 he saw Taylor, and told him a mailbag had been stolen, and that a man named Peters alleged that he had seen him (Taylor) in posses.sion of a couple of cheques which answered to the description of two cheques stolen from the mailbag. Witness asked for a statement of Taylor’s movements from 9 p.m. till midnight on Monday. Prisoner made a statement. He stated that on Saturday evening his wife was away with her people at Te Arolia. He took home a young woman named Laura Douglas,* and they remained at home till about 11 p.m.. when Harry Dwer came along with Miss Douglas’s sister. They left the house shortly afterwards, and then drove the two girls home to the tearooms where they resided. After that he and Dwen went to the garage where Dwen worked and remained there till 2 a.m., when they drove to his home and went to bed.

Taylor said that he did not get up till nearly mid-day on Sunday, and. did not leave'the house after driving home with Dwen until Sunday afternooil. NEGOTIATIONS WITH PETERS. / He admitted that ho had been in Auckland on Monday, and said that ho went to purchase wall papers. He denied having purchased any meat. During the afternoon he met a man named Peters, who he had previously known in Hamilton. He had lent Peters £3 and lie asked him if he could let him have it. Peters called him into a telephone box and produced a couple of cheques which he asked Taylor if lie could cash. One was for £lO and made out by the Brett Co. Peters pointed out that tho cheques "Acre not crossed, and could he cashed by anybody. Witness said that he could not ca6li them, and Peters, asked him to return and he would then probably he able to pay him. He went back at 5 o’clock, when Peters said he could not pay him.

In a second statement to the detective, Taylor said that on his return from Auckland lie held a conversation with Dwen, when Dwen mentioned that he had sold one car that day, and had a “prospect” for another. He asked Taylor where he had been, and he replied “Up Helensville way,” where he had sold a farm. Taylor produced a cheque for £57 6s, which he said was his commission. As a matter of fact he had not sold a farm, but, be said, he merely told Dwen this in banter, because Dweu had boasted of selling motor cars. The cheque was, as a matter oj fact, given to him on August 29 by his employer, J. E. Hutchinson, for commission due. DETECTIVE’S ADMISSIONS. Mr Strang: You did not get Taylor identified until October 4 ? Detective Sweeney: I had not sufficient evidence on which to arrest him. Mr Strang: Has a single sentence in Taylor’s statement on the occasion been disproved ?—The persons referred to confirm his movements. Witness admitted that Taylor produced a receipt showing that he had actually purchased wallpaper in Auckland on the sth, and also that prisoner was quite frank in his statement and gave witness permission to search his house. He produced the contents of his pockets. There was nothing incriminating in these documents nor could anything incriminating be found at the house. This closed the case for the Crown. No evidence was called for the defence, and Mr Gillies did not address the jury. VERDICT OF GUILTY.

The jury found Taylor guilty_ of receiving cheques stolen from mail bags, on both counts.

Accused was sentenced to two years’ hard labour. > ‘ \