CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3419, 26 September 1919, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT

Wednesday, Septembeb 17. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.)

Theft of Moneys.—Charles Ernest Taylor appeared to answer eighlr charges of misappropriation of moneys received by him in terms requiring him to account for them to the Westport Coal Company. The sums involved were: £1 6s 3d from J. M'Rae, on May 8; 16s 3d from R. Hart, on June 14; 14s 3d fron W. J. Wallace, on July 20; 16s 3d from R. Hart, on August 4; £1 Is 8d from R. Rodgerson, on August 4; end 14s 3d, 10s 3d, and £1 9s, received from W. J. Wallace, on August 6, 21, and 28 respectively. —Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the accused, who had previously pleaded guilty. Chief Detective Bishop said that when tho accused was last before the court he had attributed his action to his getting into debt on account of the death of his mother and sister. This was quite untrue, and his relatives very much resented the statement. Both of the deceased were well insured, and the accused had been put to no personal expense in that matter. —Mr White said he was instructed to apologise to the court for the false statement that had been made by the accused in his defence. Counsel added that he himself had to knowledge that the story was a fabrication, and had merely been repeating his instructions. Full restitution nad been made (by the acoused's brother), and he had been given an excellent character by his previous employers. The accused now said that horse-racing had brought about his down fall.—Chief Detective Bishop replied that according to his information the accused was one of those small welshing bookmakers, so that it was quite unlikely that he had been out of pooket on that account. Tho theft 3 were' not ones of impulse, as the charges showed a systematic method of thieving extending from May 8 to August 28. He did not consider that this was a case- for t robaiion.- -Mr Gumming, probation officer, said that under the :',ir'cv.mstances he could not make any recommendation that tne accused be admitted to probation.—His Worship said that he did not think tho court would be justified in dealing with the accused in a manner that would be tantamount to probation. Willi regard to his previous statement the court would have been seriously misled if the case had been dealt with then before there was a chance of it being contradicted. It showed the value of adjourning such cases for investigation. The accused was sentenced to one month'.} imprisonment on each of the ohar*ges, the first three to be cumulative and the other five to be concurrent with the first three—three months in all.