THEFT FROM THE WHARF

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 10000, 18 June 1918, Page 2

THEFT FROM THE WHARF

OEEuMQEB SENT TO PRISON. Tthetfts Wharves along the waterfront have become common' in Ne\V'-''!2&'fiiiuP' I lfoVt£. Yesterday a man named Edward' Mitchell stood in the dock at the Magistrate's Court, before Mr S. 12. McCarthy, S.il., charged with stealing four packets of dried poaches valued at 4s, the property of the Wellington Harbour...Board. The aocuc'od .guilty.. Inspector • Mar sack." said- that on June 12tn a constable saw the defendant leaving the wharf. Being suspicious he followed him. Mitchell boarded a tramcar, and when he arrived at his destination the constable accosted him. In an insido pocket the,, accused had.,, a bottle, of (Mtout, wibieOi ibe, ..explained had been given him, and the police had no doubt that the statement was true. The four packets of dried peaclies, found in his possession, had been taken from a Hurbour Board died.. The amount was not large, but. the chief wharfinger stated that the loss by theft from the wharves was considerable. Tho defendant was a waterside, worker and was in a position of trust. The thefts from vessels and from tho wharves were assuming largo proportions. - ■ ■Mr 11. IV, o'l/3ary,._TV'.ho,.appeared for tihe accused, said that each case should be judged according to the circum. stances. He"asked' the Court to take into consideration the low value of the goods stolen. Tlhe accused had been working on the wharves for thirteen years, and could not be held responsible for the faults of others. He asked that leniency-to g-.'imtcd to tho - defendant. In many 'similar cases that had come lb eforo tine - Supremo- Court this- offenders had been admitted to probation.. '|' ! he Probation Ollicer (Mr Mills) stated that in every wire re probation h:ul been granted tho men had made good. TUio magistrate said that iii the present case lite value of the goods stolen w-.u small. It. was undoubted that pW-. !°ge from vessels and. wharves was very ivinmonin New Zealand. s o common, in fact, that the olfendcrs <!id not consider they had eommitied theft at all. Fines had been' imposi.J, but they had" not fulfilled their eb; *et, and he would be failing in" his i'.uty if he granted leniency to the accused. The defendant was sentenced to on? month's imprisonment with hard labour.