MET THEM WITH A SONG

NZ Truth, Issue 985, 11 October 1924, Page 7

MET THEM WITH A SONG

A Litigated Canary

Melody Makes Sunshine m a Shady Place.

Into the austere sombreness of the Monday morning Court it brought its bright, cheerful, innocent warble, this little bird which yet could rejoice even m captivity. But, simple canary though it be, around its career there hangs a tale. It was, as a matter of fact, the central figure m a charge of theft brought against William Rovcroft before Mr. Poynton, S.M., at Auckland, it being alleged that he had stolen the canary and the cage from E. Turner, the property being- valued for the purposes of the proceedings at the sum of £2; but m fairness to the canary it should be at once stated that he who claimed ownership declared that he could place no monetary value on the little, songster, which was the keepsake of a deceased friend. When the prisoner stepped into the box, the feathered exhibit was placed on the table m front of the Bench, anil, as the charge was being read over, there issued forth a delightful, twittering obligato from the occupant cf the slender cage. "Not guilty" was the response made to the charge by Lawyer Sullivan, who appeared for tie accused, and the case went to proof. The story was a simple one, and throughout the drab proceeding's the only illuminating feature was the effervescent harmony emano.ting from the tremulous feathery throat of the yellow songster. E. Turner, who laid claim to the bird, said that the cage was not his, but its occupant he insisted was part of his worldly possessions. It had been rescued, it seamed, from the risks of contamination m Sydney and removed to the placid, homely innocence of Whangarei, oniy to be thereafter the subject of a donation to an elderly woman by a devoted daughter. But its aged owner had shortly passed beyond the bourne from whence., no traveller returns, and the canary was then given to the principal witness as a gift. Consequently he prized the bird very highly, not solely because of its many virtues but also on account of its being a keepsake from the deceased. "Money would not buy i,t," said the complainant, and his feathered friend gave a few appreciative lyrical bars m endorsement. A policeman stated that he had seen the accused on the evening of the alleged theft and interviewed him m his bed. He said that a man named Green had given the bird to him. It was his mother's bird, he said, and he considered he had prior right to it, so he. went and took it when he had had a few drinks. This was the case for the police, and counsel for the accused stated that there was nothing to answer. Thore was the color of right, as the bird was the property of the accused's mother and was therefore part oC the estate. S.M. Poynton held accordingly. He stated that if the will of the deceased was m the charge of the Public Trustee the bird should be given to him for disposal. There was no case and the charge was dismissed. Senior Sergeant Rawle, for the police, wanted to know what was to happen to the bird. Was it to be kept by the Crown or given to the complainant, or Wie accused, or what? . / Accused's counsel reckoned it was the right of the accused to have the bird, and he grabbed the cage and all there and then. The Bench agreed that m the meantime it should be the care of the , accused, and counsel handed the twittering thing m the cage to the prisoner, to be afterwards carried out. still warbling, to the den wherein lay the week-end gathering of drink-sod-den humanity, thieves and crooks. And' even then the irrepressible songster gave forth cheerful notes!