A HOLIDAY "JOY RIDE."

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18601, 8 January 1924, Page 5

A HOLIDAY "JOY RIDE."

TWO YOUNG MEN FINED.

Two voting men, Reginald Kellan and Archibald Howard, who took possession of a motor-car belonging to Reginald George Page on New Year's Eve and set out with some women on a joy ride, were before Mr. Bundle, S.M., in the Police Court in Dunedin last week. The charge was one of converting the car (valued at £186 10s) to their own use. The accused were undefended.

Sub-Inspector Eccles related the story of tho capture of the accused. The car, he said, had been left outside a theatre and was missed about 10 p.m. About an hour later D'etective Beer and Constable McGettigan had their attention drawn to the car by a man named Dunn, who jumped on the splashboard and turned off the power. Howard then jumped from the car and was chased by tho police officers, Detective Beer capturing him in Bond Street. Kellan was secured in the car and the women disappeared. Both the accused had already pleaded guilty to being drunk on the occasion and had been fined. The owner of the car estimated that it would cost £5 to put it right again. The sub-inspector added that there were circumstances in connection with two other cases of cars which had been taken and subsequently found abandoned which pointed to the accused Howard as the culprit. It had been ascertained that Howard was used to driving Ford cars and in each of these cases the car' was a Ford.

In reply to His Worship, Howard said he arrived from Australia about three weeks ago. He was working on a Union Company's steamer. He denied making a practice of taking cars. ■ Kellan said he got to know Howard when at sea.

The magistrate said that this class of offence was becoming a serious menace to owners of cars. Men knowing nothing ot the mechanism took cars, with the result that considerable damage was done. The Legislature had very properly amended the law governing this class of cfTence, and imprisonment in lieu of a fine could now be inflicted. In the present case ho would extend consideration to the accused that was not really deserved, but was prompted by the fact that the offence, which was a stupid one in the circumstances, was committed on New Year's Eve. There was more than an element of suspicion in respect to the other offences mentioned by the sub-inspector, and lie warned Howard that if he came before the court again be would not receive any consideration whatever.

Each accused was fined £5 and ordered to pay witness's expenses, in default 14 days' imprisonment.