THEfT FROM MASSEUR

NZ Truth, Issue 984, 4 October 1924, Page 3

THEfT FROM MASSEUR

Diabolic Methods

Carefully Laid Plot Leads to Dock.

A strange story was told at the Magistrate's Court at Auckland the other day, when three young men appeared on alternative charges of robbery with violence or the theft of £4, the property of Samuel Clifford Priestly. The accused were Joseph Bedford (alias Baker, alias Beresford), Robert Kearney, and Horace Smith. They pleaded guilty to the offence, which was afterwards reduced to common theft and was dealt with summarily. Chief Detective Cummings was m charge of the case for the police, and Magistrate Poynton was on deck. The whole affair was laid bare m the evidence of Acting-Detective McWhirter, who inquired into the matter. 'He said that Bedford was advised that he could get free treatment for • a nervous trouble he had from the complainant Priestly, who is a masseur m the city and is known for his generous and gratuitous treatment of the people who canpot afford to pay, many of whom he treats without receiving- any" return whatever. So Bedford called upon Mr. Priestly, who made an appointment for next day. In the meantime, the accused met and conferred with his colleagues, when the infamous plot was hatched, and on the following, day was carried into effect. It was decided that Bedford should go for his treatment at the suggested hour and that his brother crooks should wait handy. Then Bedford was to ask Priestly for money, and it was decided that, if a refusal was given, the trio would get money from their pigeon by force. After Bedford had availed himself of the generosity of the masseur m the easing of his pains ho called m his accomplices and had the audacity to complain to them thac the messeur had attempted to ' commit an unnatural offence on him. This "was taken- by the other members of the party as an excuse to extract money from the unsuspecting Priestly m a manner very close to blackmail. At all events,. Priestly handed over £1 6s, and said that was the best he could do for them; he was not m a position to dc more. Bedford then got hqld of Priestly by, the shoulder and the others stood by. Bedford said that they wanted £3 more. So then Priestly took Bedford to another office m the building and got £3 from the people there which he gave to Bedford. The trio, however, were not even then satisfied, and they asked for a further £2, but this Priestly refused to give. Having plucked their pigeon, the crooks retired and they divided the spoil m equal proportions. It was stated that Priestly Avas of a nervous disposition and was much affected by his experience. ■ ' The Chief Detective characterised the offence as a .very serious one, and he spoke his mind very freely m regard to the perpetrators of the deceitful affair. Bedford was a native of Sydney, and had one conviction of dishonesty there, so far as the police could make out. Smith was a native of the Dominion and had been m trouble' for breaking and entering, while Kearney had nothing against him so far as they knew. The Chief drew the attention of the Bench to what was happening m, Australia and said that we did not want anything of the kind here. Offences such as that against the accused should be stamped out at once. AH the accused had been but of work for some time, and were of a type who did not want to wox'k if they could live by dishonest means. The S.M. i-eckoned it was a most dangerous conspiracy by a. ruthless combination, to rob a person who had been most generous to one of their number. He regarded the matter as very serious and hesitated as to whether he should not send the culprits to the Supreme Court for sentence. However, he • ultimately passed sentence of six months' imprisonment on Kearney, and six months, followed by 12 months' reformative detention, m the case of the others.