BREAKING AND ENTERING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19527, 9 July 1925, Page 15

BREAKING AND ENTERING

MINBE PLEADS GUILTY. THEFTS AT KAITANGATA. A young man named David Ixmis .Armour Miohie, a miner employed at Kmtangata, appeared in the dock at the City Police Court, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S-M., yesterday morning, to answer several charges of breaking and entering. The accused was charged with having, on December 29, 1924, broken and entered the shop of M’Gruor, Taylor, and Co., at Kaitangata, and stolon therefrom goods to the value of £1 18s 2d, the property ot M'Gruer, Taylor, and Co. He was further charged with having, on January 11, broken and entered the same premises and stolen £3 15s in money and goods to the value of £9 2s and also with having on June 29, at Kaitangata, broken and entered the shop of M‘Gruer, Taylor, and Co., and stolen goods to the value of xAo 3s 3d, the property of M’Gruer, Taylor, and Co.—Chief-detective Lewis prosecuted, and the accused was represented by Mr A. G. Neill . Edward M'Fadyen, manager for M Gruor Taylor, and Co., Kaitangata, said he found the premises had been broken into on December 29. The items mentioned m the information were missing from the store to which entrance had been gained through someone getting over a gate and bursting open the door. The value of goods missing on that occasion amounted to £1 18s 2d. On another occasion (January 11), the place was broken into by two weather boards being pulled off the bottom of the building at the back, and the lavatory door burst open. On that occasion £3 10s or £3 15s in money was missing. Goods to the value of £9 were also missing. On June 29, the place was also broken into, entrance being again obtained through the lavatory, though in a different manner. Witness had since seen all the articles at the Kaitangata Police Station and identified them as the property of M'Cxruer, Taylor, and Co. Accused was a resident of Kaitangata, It was mentioned by Chief-detective how is that goods to the value of £2 2s 4d bad been recovered after the arrest of accused, all the missing articles being subsequently secured. . , Mr Bartholomew directed that it be recorded that £2. 2a 4d worth of goods had been recovered after the charge had been read, the remaining articles having been previously recovered. , Detective Sneddon sard that on Jtly 2 ho interviewed the accused at his residence in company with Constable Hamilton- The accused admitted that he had broken into M'Gruer, Taylor’s store on Juno 29 at 1 a.m., and he made a statement to that effect The articles stolen were now at the Police Station at Kaitangata. One pair of ladies’ boots and two pairs of childrens shoes had been worn, otherwise the articles were in the same condition as when stolen. Ihe blankets and the rug were on the ted. On Juno 3, the accused made another voluntary statement saying that he broke into the store at Christmas time, 1924, and stole certain goods. He repeated his visn at New Year, and stole some more goods, and the sum of £3 15s from the shop. Witness said that the goods mentioned had not been recovered, neither had the money. To Mr Neill: If the accused had not, made a voluntary statement there would not have been any evidence against him of the earlier entries into the shop. There had been no suggestion that any other shop had been entered during that period. The aoonsed was a married man with three young children, the eldest being four years o *TTus" completed the evidence and the accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.. Mr Neill, in making application xor bail, said that the accused was a young married man, and the ages of his children wore four, two, and one year respectively. So fax, ho had lived a respectable life, and his actions in this case were inexplicable. His father and his father-in-law were quite respected members of the _ community and were quite willing to assist in providing bail. The Magistrate; This is rather an unusual request in view of the charge. The Chief Detective asked that some restriction bo placed on the accused as he was really a prisoner awaiting sentence. He was a miner and there was nothing to prevent him from packing up his hog and getting away if ho wished. The Magistrate agreed that there was a difficulty, and, as the chief detective pointed jout, the accused was really a prisoner, awaiting sentence. However, he did not' think he would risk clearing out, and bail would be granted at £2OO in his own recognisance, with two sureties of £IOO on one charge and on the other two ha would have to find sureties in self of £IOO on each.