Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SECOND EDITION

INCORRECTLY WEIGHED. . .

FRUITERER FINED £5. ' ALLEGED ATTEMPTING TO STEAIi An unusual case was heard"-by'"Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., in the Aucklalidi Police 'Court the other day, when William Dickenson (Mr Moody) a fruiterer, -was charged with attempting' t-o steaL 1401b of bananas', valued' at £1 12s W, the property of Ah Chee, in that when •weighing the cart at the Boardi weiohbridge, previous to loading it with bananas, to be subsequently weighed op. the same weighbridge, he concealled) himself and was weighed with the cart, without the knowledge of the weighs bridge master. ; . W. >B. 'Cox, carrier, said he was engaged by defendant to cart bananas from Ah Chee's shop to shop. Defendant went with him,, ahdi while the empty cart was being, weighed, witness stood at the window, and could not see defendant. When _ the}! got the bananas, C. Ah Ghee said, he wanted the cart re-weighed. The cart was re-weighed when the load "wa'a taken off at Newmarket. , ...• . Augustus Paul, a carter, said he saw •defendant against the wheel of _ the cart> in a sitting position. -His weight was against the cart. • C. Ah Che e said that when h e spoke to defendant the latter said' he was- '.responsible, and asked him not- to go.any further with the matter. W. R. 'Carr. -weighmaster for the Auckland Harbour Board, said • that when the caTt was re-weighed aJEter ABi ■Chee's complaint, there was a difference of 1401b. . Th e defence wasi that if defendaiitj was on the weighbridge it was- acoir dental. Defendant denied asking 'An ■Chee not to go any further with ;tha matter. . , The Magistrate said inadvertence w;as .probable, but it was not supported the evidence for the prosecution.. Defendant was fined £5, and ® counsel)'s application the fine was increased! to £5 Is, to permit of an appeal being made. The costs were. £l. "" ' \

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM19180302.2.4

Bibliographic details

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LII, Issue 53, 2 March 1918, Page 1

Word Count
309

SECOND EDITION Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LII, Issue 53, 2 March 1918, Page 1

SECOND EDITION Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LII, Issue 53, 2 March 1918, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert