YOUTHFUL CRIMINALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23364, 2 December 1937, Page 7

YOUTHFUL CRIMINALS

THEFTS FROM DWELLING STOLEN GOODS RECEIVED While the owner of a house in Kew was absent for four days, a bedroom window of the dwelling was forced, several rooms were ransacked, and a large collection of goods, valued at £44 13s 6d. was removed. Not content with this haul, the intruder returned the following night to the house and made an unsuccessful attempt to force a safe. As a result of these operations, Clifford William Hill, aged 20 years, appeared in the City Police Court before Mr J. R. Bartholomew. S.M., yesterday morning charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of William Joseph Anderson by day and stealing goods valued at £44 13s 6d.—Arising out of the same enterprises Allan Trevor Oldham Spinks, aged 21 years, pleaded guilty to a charge of receiving a camera valued at £2O, the property of William Joseph Anderson, well knowing this article to have been dishonestly obtained. The complainant in the case against Hill stated in evidence that about 7.15 a.m. on November 15 he had locked the doors and windows of his house at 20 Middleton street, Kew, and had left with his wife. He did not return until about 9.30 p.m. on November 19, when he discovered that some unauthorised person had been .in the house during his absence. A bedroom window had been forced, several rooms ransacked, and goods to the value of £44 13s 6d removed. Witness recognised various articles, ranging from a pair of trousers to a torch, produced by the police. Articles to the value of £l4 5s were still missing. In addition to this, an attempt had been made to open a safe, which had been damaged to the extent of £l.

Detective Brown stated that on November 23 he interviewed accused at his home, and, in answer to a question whether he had given a camera to a man named Spinks, the accused had replied in the affirmative, but said he had obtained it from a man called Stanley, The accused had then been taken to the police station, where he had made a statement admitting that he had entered the house and had stolen the articles in question. He had returned on another night to the house and had stationed his brother at the gate to keep a watch and warn him if anyone approached the house. His object in returning try to force a safe which he had seen on the previous visit. He had not been successful in the attempt. The next day he had burnt several articles of clothing stolen from the house. In his statement he described how he had tried to dispose of some of the articles. The accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. STOLEN CAMERA RECEIVED

After the accused Spinks had pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving the stolen camera, Chief Detective Young said that this was a case of one criminal assisting another to dispose of stolen property. The accused had been given a camera valued at £2O by Hill, who asked him to dispose of it. Spinks had then taken it to a pawnshop and had obtained 10s for it, receiving 2s 6d from Hill as commission. The accused had a long list of offences.

The accused said that when Hill had given him the camera he had asked him where he obtained it. Hill replied that it was his own and his uncle had given it to him. Witness said he took the camera to a pawnshop, but when he was about to hand it over he had a “ hunch ” that if anything were wrong he should protect himself. This was why he had given a fictitious name. The magistrate said that he noticed in the list submitted that the accused had served two terms in the Borstal, as well as other prison sentences, and had several other convictions. His Worship imposed a sentence of three months’ imprisonment, with hard labour.