ERROR OF JUDGMEMT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9836, 6 December 1917, Page 2

ERROR OF JUDGMEMT

LAUNDRY MANAGER IN TROUBLE DEFENCE CLOTHING AND AN INDIAN D\TBR. Tho manager of the Excelsior Laundry, Orlando AV. Oldham, was charged before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., in tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday, with being in the possession, of a quantity of clothing and blankets, the property of tho Defence Department, without being able to satisfactorily account for tho samo. Chief-Deteciivo Boddam prosecuted and Air T. W. Hislop appeared for tha defence. Major McCristcll, in chargo of the Defence Stores, gave evidence as to a contract between tho Defence Department and accused for the washing of clothes, from Trentham Military, Hospitals. There was no contract for anything other than clothing. AVallie Mahommed Salarnan, dyer, gave evidence as to a business conversation with accused relative to the latter having various articles dyed. Oldham asked him whether khaki would take the dye. Witness replied. “It will take it good.” Oldham then questioned him about dyeing a. quantity of military overcoats. Oldham wanted to know if black dye would cover up numbers, and witness said it would, but would not destroy them. On tho same day he had this conversation witness had been dyeing at the Excelsior Laundry a quantity of slate-coloured cloth into khaki. Ho left the laundry to get some more chemicals, and when he returned ho found that a quantity of the cloth he had been dyeing had been cut off and placed behind some casks. In explanation Oldham had told him that the cloth had heon wrongly measured. CALLED HIM A BLACK NIGGER.

dross-examined by Mr Hislop, witness said he had no feelings of revenge against Oldham. Mr Hislop: “Wasn’t there trouble over you and the girls at his Vivian street shop?” Witness: "The trouble was about a bit of cloth 1 found there—another piece.” “You havo no loyo for him anyhow?” —“What do you mean?” “You don’t like 3dm anyhow?’— “Oh I have no like or dislike. I tell the truth.” ~ Witness added Jbhat Oldham had called him a hlack nigger. Detective-Sergeant Oox gave evidence os to searching accused’s premises and discovering tho property in question in an upstairs portion of the building. Accused said he had received the property either from the Defence Department or from soldiers. He had never asked Salaman to do any dyeing of military clothing. _ Accused said ho had . noticed military clothes hanging up in SalamarFs shop some time ago. They were dyed, and he warned Salaman that he would get into trouble if it was found out.

FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence Mr Hislop said that •his client's company dealt with thousands and thousands of parcels containing soldiers’ clothing. It would be miraculous if all these -wore handled without mishap. It was hardly likely when the men failed to pay for the cleaning of this clothing that the company could do other than hold a lien on them in default of payment. Many of the articles were not called for, and wero carefully put by. The laundry had a very largo business, and mistakes must occur. As to Salaman’s evidence, it was just an indication as to how revengeful people of that race could be. Salaninn cherished some vindictive spirit against Oldham. Defendant had found Salaman talking to the girls in his factory, and had spoken to him about it. SALAMAN AND THE LADIES. Evidence for the defence was given on the lines outlined by Mr Hislop. Two employees of the Excelsior Laundry said they objected to tho presence at tho laundry of Salaman. One stated he had asked her to como and have toa with him at his house, and another said ho had called hei offensive names. Accused, in his evidence, denied there had been any dealings with Salaman as to dyeing Defence property. Tho only tonsil uction he could put on Salaman’a behaviour in giving antagonistic evidence was the fact that

he had taken work away from Salaman. INDIAN’S EVIDENCE UNSAFE. The magistrate said that, m arriving at a decision, he would have to leave out the evidence of the Indian - It would be unsafe to take this evidence, a-s there was a strong motive for the Indian to act on. Ho did not think defendant had hecn business-like f,a . Iris dealings with Defence property.. He should have reported any inaccuracies in the business dealt with, and notified failure of the soldiers to call for their clothing. There was absolutely' nothing in defendant’s conduct that suggested dishonesty, however. It was a mere error of judgment. Justice would be mfit by convicting ana discharging him.