WHOLESALE THEFTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23499, 13 May 1938, Page 10

WHOLESALE THEFTS

EMPLOYEES OF LARGE FIRMS DISCLOSURES IN COURT HUGE QUANTITY OF GOODS (Per United Press Association/ CHRISTCHURCH, May 12. “These cases disclose a system ot wholesale thieving and receiving in the city over a period of three years,” said Detective Sergeant T, E. Holmes in the Magistrate’s Court, when nine men and one woman appeared on theft and receiving charges. A search of premises in the city had revealed stolen property valued at £1164 6s 6d, he said, and this had been identified by six large city firms by which most of the men charged were employed. Assortment of I’r perty “ The assortment of property, including half a ton oi drapery and some bulky hardware and ironmongery, is undoubtedly the largest this court has seen for some time,” he continued. “Altogether there is more than three tons of goods, and it is clear that the courtroom could not hold it all. At one time the men all worked in one centre and the goods w'ent to a common receiver. The employees had had up to 24 years’ service with thenfirms.” Six of the men charged with theft, one of whom faced a receiving charge in addition, entered pleas of guilty an.f were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. The man against whom eight charges of receiving were preferred also pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence. One man was remanded until Mondav. and the case against the woman was adjourned until next Thursday. The Accused The men accused of theft—John Searle, Herbert Arthur Currie, Tom Hazard, Harold Thomas Stringer, Rawei Arthur Wilkinson, Harold Herbert Stackhouse, and Herbert Francis Hempenstall—gave evidence of the handling of the goods when the receiving charges against Hugh Lowther were heard. Detective Cunningham, who arrested Lowther, and Detectives Watt and Burns read statements relating to the charges in which Lowther said he had bought the goods from the other men, knowing most of them to have been stolen. Lowther also accepted full responsibility for the goods recovered from premises other ihah his own, saying that they had been put there at his instructions. Lowther was granted bail in his own recognisance of £IOOO and two sureties of £IOOO each. For Searle. bail was fixed at self £2OO and one surety of £2OO. In each of the other cases the accused were, granted renewal of bail in self £IOO and one surety of £IOO. All were ordered to report daily to the police.