UNUSUAL CASE.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12952, 17 May 1935, Page 6

UNUSUAL CASE.

FREE POSTAL SAMPLES.

THEFT IX DANXFVTRKE

Electric Telegraph—Press Association JDANNEVIRKE, Tlii« llay.

An unusual case came betiore Magistrate J. Miller, when Arthur James Webber, a well-known public accountant, was charged with stealing 55 packets of ‘ • weexies,’ ’ to a value of 4s 6d, the property of Cereal Foods Ltd.

The police stated that the postman left a sealed mail bag containing 69 samples oi weeties (biscuits) at a shop recognised by the Post Office a,s a depot for over-flow mail. It was to have been picked up later by tho postman for delivery of the biscuits. Ihe defendant was working ill a professional capacity at the depot when the bag was left. Wiien the postman returned he. found that the contents had been removed. He. was given the empty bag by Webber. Fifty-five packets .of weeties were recovered and when the postman enquired for the remainder defendant jokingly remarked: "You will have less tc deliver."

The defendant said he was busy when the postman left the, bag. Fie understood the bag contained something for the firm lie was working for and opened it. He could see no address on the packages and concluded that they were surplus stores or rejected material that had been left to be destroyed. Witness handed back the empty bag to the postman and pointed to a drawer which he had filled with the packages.

To his surprise the postman picked them up. As all the parcels would not go into the drawer he had made the remainder into parcels and left one on the counter. The others were beside his desk. He had understood he was to hand the bag back to the postman when empty. The police said the postal authorities took a serious view of the matter and desire<T it to ~be a warning that the hags contained mail and must not be interfered with. The defence claimed that defendant honestly misunderstood the position and did not know what was required of him. Counsel said a conviction would be serious for defendant and he might be struck off the register of Public Accountants. The Magistrate found defendant guilty. As he did not desire to interfere with defendant earning his living he dealt with him under the first offenders Prodati oner’s Act. discharging him, explaining that he did licit like the ordinary dismissal. Defendant had done a very foolish thing and must have known he 4 would be detected. An applit s.tior for the. suppression of tho name was refused.

SECOND EDITION