INTERFERENCE WITH CARS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3755, 2 March 1926, Page 56

INTERFERENCE WITH CARS.

THEFT ON PARKING ARIfA. The seriousness of interfering with motor cars left at night on the city parking places was emphasised by Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., at the City Police Court on Saturday, when William Paton Lymburn pleaded guilty to stealing a motor car clock, a bulb, and a guard, of a total value of £2 ss, the property of James Kane. The charge had been substituted for one of converting a car to his own use. Senior Sergeant Ouartermain stated that on Thursday night the accused was seen interfering with motor cars in Water street. On being accosted, he bolted from the car, but he was pursued, and a constable was called. The articles mentioned were found in his possession. When arrested the accused had five bottles of beer, and was confused with drink. He was a man with a good reputation, and had never been in trouble previously. The offence was probably due to his drunken condition. The goods were so badly damaged that they were useless. Mr H. Brasch, on behalf of the accused, said that this was an extremely painful case for the man's relatives. The theft was purposeless, as the accused was financially of good standing, and had no need to take the articles. He was doubtless under the influence of liquor, as he did not recollect the happening till he was questioned in the police cells. Mr Brasch asked the magistrate to take a lenient view of the case, and to prohibit the publication of the accused’s name. Senior Sergeant Quarterraain stated that the constable who had arrested the accused had reported that the man was drunk at the time. The accused agreed to the issue of a prohibition. order, and was ordered to make full restitution. In inflicting a fine of £5, the Magistrate mid the act was one of drunken folly, and not one of deliberate criminal intent, but an example must be made, as a large number of cars were left on parking places and should bo protected. As to the request for the suppression of accused’s name, the magistrate said that this was not a class of offence in which he would be justified in making an order. The accused was a man of mature age, and was a respdnsible person. Other than that the accused was drunk, there were no special circumstances connected with the charge.