Stole U.S. Goods

Northern Advocate, 2 October 1943, Page 2

Stole U.S. Goods

(Special) AUCKLAND, This Day. Although lie could not provide any proof, a suspicion that he had been ••trained” was voiced bv Stanley Walter Cotter in the Police Court yesterday when he pleaded not guilty to storing petrol contrary to the Explosive and Dangerous Goods Act, and also to being in possession of goods the property of the United States Government without satisfactorily accounting for them. Senior-Detective Walsh prosecuted, ancl Mr. Frner appeared for accused.

Detective E. W. Mahood said that with other members of the police force he visited accused’s wine shop in Queen Street on August 15. In the storeroom they found a drum containing 3U gallons of petrol, and on the premises three jeep tins, 55 new singlets and four bottles of whisky. In accused’s car were five pairs of gloves, cartons of cigarettes, ancl a number of packets of cigarettes. No proper provision bad been made for storing the petrol. An officer of the United Slates Marines gave evidence that the goods produced were similar to those used by the United States Forces. Accused, in evidence, said that three days before the police visited his premises a man, then unknown to him, had called at the shop and asked to be allowed to leave the petrol and a parcel over the week-end. He said he had been recommended to accused by the man who had owned the shop previously. Accused at the time did not know that the parcel contained singlets. The gloves found had been given him when he conducted a Queen Street restaurant some months ago, and some of the Americans, who comprised 99 per cent, of his customers, had given him the packets of cigarettes. The cartons he had purchased from them at 10/- each. The four bottles of whisky were his own property. Since the police visit he had made extensive inquiries, but had been unable to locate the man who had left the petrol and parcel of singlets with him. The reason he suspected liehad been “framed” was because recently water bad been placed in his petrol tank, the tyres of his car cut, and his shop had been entered and wine to the value of £3l stolen. Mr. Luxford, S.M., said that section 56 of the Defence Act was a very useful statutory provision. It placed the onus on the defendant of satisfactorily explaining possession of the goods. This he natl not done, and would be sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. On the charge covering the storage of petrol he wound be convicted and discharged.