“PEEPING TOM” GAOLED

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12249, 22 September 1925, Page 7

“PEEPING TOM” GAOLED

FOND OF KELBURN BY NIGHT GIRL RINGS UP A NEIGHBOUR ACCUSED SEEN RUNNING “A typical Peeping Tom,” was the description given by Chief-Detective Kemp of Benjamin Seiver when he appeared at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Seiver, who had also been known as Fred Sages and James Luke, was once a circus, hand, and at the time of his arrest was employed qs a kitchen hand in an hotel. He was charged that he had been found by night without lawful purpose on premises in Rimu road, Kelburn. on September 3rd last. He pleaded not guilty. TRYING THE BACK DOOR In giving evidence, the first witness, a girl, stated that she had returned to her home late at night. While in her bedroom she heard steps outside her window, and shortly afterwards heard the back door being tried. The door was locked, and the intruder passed around the house to the front, and there stood in a shadow, from which he could look into her bedroom. She switched off the electric light,

but the man continued to stare in. She spoke to her aunt, who was also In the house, and they decided to ring up Mr Ewart, a neighbour, who, when he came over, told the women that he also had seen the intruder. There were no signs of anybody when a search was made. SEEN FROM ANOTHER HOUSE Mr Ewart also gave evidence. He said he noticed a man loafing around his neighbour’s house, and had watched him through a window in his own house. As soon as he received the ’phono ring he went to the next door •house, and on the way passed a man running down the road, whom he (witness) identified as the accused. Seiver had been seen on previous occasions lnrking in the neighbourhood. When interviewed by Detective Murch accused denied that he had been in Rimu road, but stated that he had often gone walking in Kelburn during the evenings. Accused, it was stated, had a record, having been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for theft, which sentence had been reduced per the medium of the Appeal Court to two years. The magistrate asked accused if he had any explanation to make as to why he was on the premises. Seiver said “No.” A sentence of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed.