HINDS IN HOBBLES

NZ Truth, Issue 935, 27 October 1923, Page 3

HINDS IN HOBBLES

Sins Of "Soldier Thompson" ADMITS MANY BURGLARIES. His Housekeeper Is Acquitted. (From "Truth's" Auckland Rep.) "Soldier Thompson," the well-known professional wrestler, whose correct name is Alfred Arthur Hinds, and who has been seen m nearly every Town Hall and on every Show Ground m the Dominion, did not look the. jformid-. able person his reputation when he appeared at the\ Police Court last week and pleaded guilty to nine charges of burglary. Goods and money to the value of about £13 were set forth m the list of the wrestler's wrongdoingsall secured from shops and dwellings m the suburbs of Auckland. Further charges were preferred — of being m possession of skeleton keys, picklocks and explosives. To the latter charges also Hinds ssid he was guilty. A long string of witnesses gave evidence as to their houses being burgled and identified" much of the huge pile of stolen property on the floor of the Court, and tho tale of Hinds's capture was retold by Constable Nehoff, who arrested the burglar after FIRING AFTER HIM with his revolver, and after a desperate twenty minutes' hand-to-hand struggle at Devonport, m the early hours of one Sunday morning. Accused had a weapon which was described as a dummy automatic, which emitted flashes of fire. On his arrest Hinds said he went to the shop of the Auckland Meat Co. because he was starving. All the ; goods produced m Court were found m the accused's house at Narrow NeckY There was plenty of food m the house — also keys, picklocks and gelignite and fuses. A statement by the accused was then read, m which Hinds said he had been a foreman on tho railway works at North Auckland and was a widower with three children. He had not worked for three months as he had been laid up. In this statement he admitted only two burglaries, but when told of the property found In his house he admitted the lot — nine charges m all — and said that ithe presents he gay& his housekeeper, Mrs. Loveridsrc, were stolen, or some of them, but that he had told her they were the property of his deceased wife. Hinds, who was represented by Solicitor R. G. Scott, was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court on the charges of burglary and^being m possession of skeleton keys, and on the charge of be.ing m possession of explosives he Avas dealt with summarily and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. T"he charges of receiving against Hind's housekeeper, Mrs. Loveridge, were then proceeded with. The goods this lady was accused of having taken as presents from Hinds m the knowledge that they were stolen were a wristlet watch, a fur, and men's trousers. However, Lawyer Tong put A DIFFERENT ASPECT on the matter to that set out by rumor. He said that the accused was the victim of unkind arid unfortunate circumstances and narrated how she first camo m touch with the wrestlerburglar. Hinds came to her with his little girl when she kept a boarding-" -house m the North, and later, when illhoalth compelled her to give up this place and come to Auckland, she again received him and tho children into her home at Remuera, Later she had to give this home up also, and when Hinds took a place at Narrow Neck she'went there, more for a home for herself and her child than anything else. Because of what she Had done for him and his children Hinds had often given her presents, telling her that they had come out of some of the' boxes he had m store, and had been the property of his wife. T,here was not the slightest evidence, said counsel, to show that Mrs. Loveridge knew the goods were stolen. Her relations with the man were quite innocent. He appeared to be a very quiet, good fellow, and he used generally to retire to his room oarly at night. Evidently he used to got up m the middle of the night and go out on these burglarious depredations, but Mrs. Loveridge was m innocence of this. Counsel produced lettero of recommendation which i gave Mrs. Loveridge a very high char--1 actor. Remarking" that Hinds was a liar, and that it was very probable that he had told his housekeeper the presents he gave her had belonged to his wife, tho Magistrate dismissed the case without hearing evidence for the defence.