ALLEGED THEFT

Northern Advocate, 19 August 1935, Page 7

ALLEGED THEFT

PARCEL OF MEAT CHARGE AGAINST BUTCHER. S.M. RESERVES DECISION. Decision was reserved in a charge of theft of a quantity of meat, heard at the Whangarei Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr G. N, Morris, S.M. Defendant, whose name was sl:p* pressed pending decision, was represented by Mr Ross. It was charged that, on July 13, he did steal an 81b leg of mutton, 41bs of corned meat, and 3ibs of pork sausages, of a total value of 9/6, the property of the Cheaper Mutton Company, Wnangarei. A plea of not guilty was entered. C. H. Finlayson, proprietor of the Cheaper Mutton Company,' said defendant had been employed by him at a salary of £6 per week, and was allowed to take home meat for his own consumption. On July 13, • witness weighed a parcel of meat addressed to a person in Auckland, and which was in one of the shops. Defendant’s son later came in and picked up the parcel and took it out. Defendant had no authority to send the meat to Auckland. Defendant was asked if he had sent meat to Auckland, and he said he had not. He then admitted that he had sent it on one occasion. He said the people were in poor circumstances, and he thought it was a deserving case. No mention was made of payment. Witness told defendant that he should have helped this person out of his £6 a week, and not out of witness’ property. The employees of the firm, witness said, were entitled to free meat, which Would probably amount to 8/ or 9/ a week. He did not know if defendant had had other meat that week. Mr Ross said that it was admitted that the parcel of meat went to Auckland by train. Detective P. J. Nalder deposed that defendant, when interviewed, said that he had intended going to Auckland at the week-end, when the meat was sent, but when he was informed that they were not referring to that week-end, he said he had not intended going. In a statement, he said that he had had no meat for himself that week, as he was killing his own poultry, Mr Ross said that defendant had been killing his own poultry and had not been using his free meat, so that the quantity of meat sent away was a diversion of his own supply, which he would have had. He saw no barm in diverting his own ration. Mr Ross submitted that there was no theft, as defendant honestly believed that he could take the meat. The matter resolved itself into a question of whether the circumstances supported a charge of theft or not. Defendant's point of view was that if he did not take his. full ration Of meat he was not receiving his full wages, Finlayson had said that his employees were all allowed to take meat for home consumption, and this would be valued at 8/ or 9/ a week. The whole matter was above board, and there was no concealment. The defence was that there was a colour of right in defendant taking the meat, and counsel submitted that there was no theft. Mr Nalder said that if employees were allowed to send meat away there would be no check on the quantity so disposed. Mr Morris: “It is obvious that the system lends itself to that.” Mr Morris-added that there was also the question of an employee taking meat home and then not wanting it, disposing of it elsewhere. Tjhat aspect had to be considered. Decision was reserved. When the Court resumed after lunch, Mr Ross applied for suppression of name, which the Magistrate granted, pending judgment.