STOLE AN AEROPLANE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23004, 6 October 1936, Page 13

STOLE AN AEROPLANE

for flight>jo spaim FIRST GASkrOF ITS Kind % For stealing .an aeroplane" worth •£3400; Joseph Allen Smith,- aged .27,, of Southsea, was; recently.: sentenced at Portsmouth to four iK mohths' impri<», sonment. The case (says the London. Daily Telegraph) was said to be thefirst of its kind in this.country. "„'"'": . Smith, . a,- rigger or,' Wood .'Worker, , employed by Airspeed, Ltd., had been, originally charged with breaking,, into % a hangar'. at .Portsmouth, Airport, and' stealing the machine, the property.of his employers,, but the charge was reduced to one of simple'larceny. : •. ;.. Smith, who limped slightly as'he , entered the -dock, pleaded guilty, tod elected to be.dealt with summarily. Mr Eric Ward, prosecuting, said that according to public, rumour, at any rate, agents from Spain had beeri-tb. other countries endeavouring to obtain "aircraft and skilled pilots- and mechanics. ■> ■•■•'■::•■ In-ordinary times it was" not possible: to steal an. aeroplane and sell it again, at any rate,, to* an honest man, unless the documents of title were in order. Only in special circumstances, as. for instance, a civil war, was it possible to get what Smith < had described as "a golden opportunity": . On August. 18 Smith was heard to say that he would.get £lso(for his services as a mechanic in Spain.- He said: "If I could only get hold of a machine I would fly there myself." That evening Smith said to another - man, whom.he. had: asked to go with him: "If you\want to come,.be at the aerodrome at 6' o'clock" to-morrow morning." Next day Smith went to a department of the aerodrome and .had some instruction ill the. working of a com-., pass. He also had a look at the controls of a machine similar to the one he stole. That evening he" obtained £3 on account of wages. ONE OF FIVE . ORDERED. The machine which was the subject of the charge Was one of five ordered by a British, firm,.five wee::s previously. Pending small alterations, it was withoiit a certificate of airworthiness. .'■.'.... • - ■.;,.■, ■., ,- " On the morning of August 20." con- .- tinued Mr Ward, "the attention'of two groundsmen bn.duty at the airport was drawn to an Airspeed Courier machine, which was but on the aerodrome. They heard, its''engine starting and firing in an irregular J fashion. :'•:. "The engine was being revved and slowed down in a< way which 'no skilled pilot would have done before taking off. "■ '■■".. "The machine left the ground, and had got as far as the ramparts' at, the north-west corner of the. aerbdrome, when the left wing tip l appeared.;to • strike the top of the ramparts, and to get entangled in some'trees. The ma-, chine crashed to the ground: "Smith was thrown, clear to a distance of about 20. feet. V The .other • man,: Arthur Gargett,', was thrown about 50 feet'to the other side of the ramparts bank and received, serious injuries to both legs.. He \vill be in hospital for at least six months." Mr Ward handed photographs of the .. machine to-the magistrates, saying'that ' they would.see that Smith could count himself most fortunate in being thrown clear. Otherwise the engines would , have.fallen back upon.him, ahd he and the other man would certainly have lost their lives.. The only other known observer of this escapade was a pilot of Airspeed, Ltd., whose attention was attracted; by the noise of the engine, by which-he could tell that the machine was in inefficient hands. Mr Ward declared that in a statement Smith made to the police: ih* hospital, he said: "We intended to take.it to Spain to< see What we' could do , with it. I served seven years in. the Royal Air Force, and: have 200 or 300 hours of flying as a passenger, but I have never flown myself befbre. I am sorry for what happened." day. After the embargo Smith, he added, had a, perfectly' clean record before that offence, but the company took a serious view of. it because on the day before an embargo was imposed by the. Government; on. the transport of machines to Spain: Had he succeeded in his purpose, there might have been serious complications. ■ :■ r ■ Smith made several attempts to get men to join him in the enterprise, but they told him, in nb. uncertain terms, what they thought of it. ;\ • ', Mrs Smith, called for. the defence, entered the court, with a baby in her arms. She said that her husband allowed her £3 a week, and if he were sent to prison she would have to ask for relief, «as she had no other source of income, -.■.-....- ;.. . . Mr.; J. V, M. Peters, for the defence, commenting, on. the fact that-this was the first case bf an aeroplane theft in this country, said that it might- be that an air traffic Act would have to be passed to deal with that .type of offence; Smith, he said, had been a man of absolute integrity. "It was a perfectly simple case pf a , man who had been a fbol".added Mr Peters: "He had ho chance of success because he had not the faintest idea of navigating the aeroplane or getting it off the ground. ~ ■ H.'-'i' "Assuming he had headed for. Spain and by some lucky stroke had landed, .1 think he would either have been interned or shot, and the aeroplane would have been seized. The'attempt was doomed to failure from the ; word 'Off.'" In passing sentence, Mr P., Childs, the chairman, said'that the offence was premeditated and' for gain. A serious -aspect of the case was that Smith had tried to entice his fellow and apparently succeeded with regard tc. one man, who had received serious injury. ~ '.'. Smith, added Mr Childs, could have been. sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but the Bench would tak* . into account his previous good charae ! ter and the fact • that he had beet almost as-big a fool as he possiblf could ba * = ■••.--.