SERIES OF THEFTS

Southland Times, Issue 21581, 19 December 1931, Page 6

SERIES OF THEFTS

THREE MEN CONVICTED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT The sequel to a series of burglaries and thefts perpetrated during the past few months was heard in the City Police Court yesterday morning when, after the hearing of evidence, the Magistrate (Mr E. C. Levvey) sentenced three men each to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour and reformative detention thereafter for a period of two years. In passing sentence his Worship once again made it quite clear that the existence of gangs would not be tolerated. He said that if they were persisted in the punishment must be made commensurate with the nature of the offence. To charges of breaking and entering the house of Abraham Wachner at Oreti Beach on July 31 and commiting the crime of theft therein to the value of £35 9/-; of stealing at Invercargill on the same date one 12-gallon drum of oil valued at £4 16/-, the property of John Thomas Bath; of stealing at Invercargill on the same date a quantity of petrol and oil valued at £2 3/2, the property of Alexander Glass; of stealing on July 17 at Invercargill a quantity of potatoes, chaff, parsnips and carrots valued at £3 9/-, the property of Thomas Knuekey; of stealing on July 31 at Otatara nine sacks of potatoes valued at £2 14/-, the property of Wilfred Francis Metzger; and of stealing on July 16 at Invercargill a quantity of potatoes and chaff, valued at £1 11/6, the property of Alfred Botherway, Cyril Neville Fairweather, John Alexander Shanks and Henry Alexander Warden all pleaded guilty. All three accused pleaded not guilty to charges of committing mischief by wilfully damaging the shop of Frederick Thomas Blick at Oreti Beach on July 31 to the extent of £6 and of stealing one minor and strop valued at £1 7/-thcrefrom. Shanks and Warden pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing at Invercargill on June 15 last 16 gallons of lubricating oil valued at £6 4/-, the property of John Thomas Bath. Fairweather pleaded guilty and Shanks not guilty to stealing at Tisbury on October 12 a quantity of gelignite, fuse and detonators, valued at £3 2/5, the property of the Southland County Council. Shanks and Warden pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing on December 5 at Waimatua about 14 gallons of petrol, valued at £1 6/10, the property of the Southland County Council. Detective-Sergeant D. J. Hewitt conducted the prosecution. Pleas Altered. Fairweather subsequently withdrew his pleas of not guilty to the charges of mischief and theft at Oreti Beach and sub- | stituted pleas of guilty. Speaking on his behalf, counsel said he found it difficult to say anything likely to affect the Court in its consideration of the offences. A number of men had been operating in a band and he knew beforehand the Court's view on the subject of gang operations. However, he wished to refer to Fairweather’s subsequent conduct and asked the Court to take note of certain facts. Immediately after the committal of the major offence at Abraham Wachner’s summer residence, Fairweather had done his best to return the property, showing that he realized the seriousness of the crime and intended to make some reparation, if not to the State, then to the owner of the house. Fairweather had been warned by the police that he was under suspicion and he did not associate with Warden again. The offence in October was an isolated one and after that he had heeded the warning of the police and had nothing further to do with the others. Unknown to Fairweather, two men had removed the stolen property concealed at the beach and attempted to sell same. Fairweather, who had made a clean breast of the matter and had taken the police to the spot on the beach where the goods had been concealed, had been surprised to find the property missing. Fairweather, who had a wife and four children, had not been actually involved in matters of dishonesty up to the present. He was a man easily led and the offences had been committed under the influence of drink, which was always a source of trouble with him. Detective-Sergeant Hewitt said that as all three had pleaded guilty in a previous statement to the offences connected with Blick’s shop, he was surprised to learn that they had changed their pleas. Counsel said the position was that the men, while present, did not participate in the damage. The evidence was heard of Frederick Thomas Blick, proprietor of an ice cream shop at Oreti Beach. He described the damage done and said that the place had been broken into with an axe. Several articles had been taken. Detective Robert Lean produced a statement in which Shanks and Warden were alleged to have described how they had entered the shop and removed a strop and looking glass. At this stage Shanks and Warden decided to alter their pleas of not guilty to guilty. “Work for Idle Hands." Their counsel said he was not in the position to say much for his clients who had such a list of offences against them. He drew attention to the fact that the party had been unemployed and it was a case of Satan finding work for idle hands. Drink was responsible for the men going astray. They had made good as far as they could by admitting their offences and thus saving the police trouble. The worst feature was that the three men had been involved in the great bulk of the charges, there being little distinction between them.

It was stated that in the theft of the gelignite Shanks had been an accomplice. Detective-Sergeant Hewitt said that this gang of three men had been going around under suspficion for a few months before finally making a false step. Warden had been arrested on another charge and the

discovery of stolen property in his possession had led to the arrest of the other men. The worst offence was that committed at Wachner’s where they had cleared out the whole crib. The goods were brought into town and then, on the men becoming alarmed, they were hidden in the sand at the beach. Portion had been destroyed and portion brought back. The detective-sergeant claimed that the men were all of the same kidney. When interviewed by the police they at first denied all knowledge of the offence at Wachner’s and of the theft of potatoes. With regard to the theft of oil Warden had a key to Bath’s garage and had taken the oil in such a way that it had never been missed. He had been selling it cheaply about, town

by means of a plausible story. Ryan, I who had been employed by the' County Council, had a key to the premises where the gelignite was stored. In conclusion the detective-sergeant said there was no need to point out to the Bench the danger of such men getting gelignite. In fairness to tho accused he said that they had made a clean breast of their offences to the police after their arrest. “Aft-er hearing counsel and the. police there is only one thing for the court to do and that is to show most emphatically that tho presence of gangs will not be permitted,” said the Magistrate. “If they are indulged in and a series of offences committed, then the punishment must be commensurate with the nature of the offence.’’ Fairweather, Shanks and Warden, on the major charge of theft were each sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, to be followed by reformative detention for two years. On the other charges they were convicted ana discharged. Charges Withdrawn. A charge of stealing 12 gallons of lubricating oil, valued at £3 7/6, the property of John Pagan, junior, was preferred against Warden who pleaded not guilty. In view of the decision arrived at in the previous cases Detective-Sergeant Hewitt asked leave to withdraw this charge. Permission was granted. A similar charge against James Brown Doake who pleaded not guilty, was withdrawn. Counsel said that it was a case of mistaken identity and desired to make this public statement to avoid any stigma being attached to Doake. Wilfred Francis Metzger pleaded not guilty to a charge of receiving a quantity of gelignite, fuse and detonators, well-know-ing same to have been stolen. Evidence was given by Kenneth Francis Jones, assistant-engineer to the Southland County Council, of the use of gelignite on relief works. In charge had been Ryan whose word would be taken as to the amount used. Cyril Neville Fairweather, in giving evidence, said that he and his companions had taken the gelignite and sold it to Metzger for 15/-. To counsel for the accused, witness said he thought that Metzger was in the hut at the time, but could not swear that he had heard what, witness had said. Witness admitted that on the night the gelignite was sold he was under the influence of drink, but denied that he had told Metzger that the gelignite was some left over from a gravel contract. Witness said he bad no gum-boots with him nor were the.-e mentioned. Detective J. Hill read a statement, he had obtained from Metzger in which the accused was alleged to have said he was offered the gum-boots, but had declined to buy them, thinking there was a possibility of their being stolen goods. Metzger was alleged to have stated also he knew be was committing an offence by purchasing stolen property from them. To counsel for the accused: Metzger had admitted buying the gelignite and had placed no difficulty in the way of the police. After Constable A. Mcßae had given evidence of the interview which took place at Otatara, counsel addressed the Court, declaring that the prosecution had to prove that a receiver must have known the subject matter to be stolen. This was a serious charge and he submitted that the evidence heard was of the flimsiest possible nature. Although the accused was probably aware he was dealing with people he knew to be not too honest, he had no reason to believe that the gelignite had been stolen.

The Magistrate csked counsel why his client had purchased the gelignite if he distrusted the men selling it. "Because be wanted the gelignite for stumping,” was the reply. The Magistrate: Yes, but why not at a proper price? Counsel said his client had been given the plausible explanation that tho gelignite was left over from a gravel contract. Meta, ger had hod a previous transaction with Fairweather which must be considered a right and proper one. Counsel considered that Metzger’s statement, made to rhe police in a friendly manner and when he was unaware he was to be arrested, should not be held against him. Evidence of Accused. Giving evidence, the accused, who is a farmer at Otatara, said he had never purchased gelignite before and did not know the value of it. He required some for stumping purposes and bought some from Fairweather. When asked co purchase the gum-boots, he said he already had a pair. Witness said he had no knowledge of any gelignite being missing When discussing the matter in a friendly fashion with the police, he had not taken much notice of the incident and had no suspicion about his possible arrest. Detective-Sergeant Hewitt: You say the police were very friendly. Witness: Yes. You didn’t expect them to come up and scruff you by tlie neck and throw you about the farm two or three times?—No. You’d have said .hey were harsh, then. Witness admitted he had suspected Fairweather and his companions over a potato deal, but a subsequent transaction with a dray had caused him to forget about it. To the Detective-Sergeant, he said he had not been afraid of the men. In giving his decision tho Magistrate said he thought that the inner stcry was really contained in the last question asked by the detective-sergeant. He believed that, Metzger, in attempting to placate the men, had not paid particular attention to the transaction. In view of Metzger’s previous good record the Magistrate said he proposed to give him the benefit of the doubt and would dismiss tho information against him. Theft of Gelignite. Cornelius Francis Ryan entered a plea of guilty to a charge of stealing a quantity of gelignite, fuse and detonators, valued at £1 19/-, the property of the Southland County Council. Similarly charged, Fergus Clyma pleaded not guilty. The charge against Ryan was proceeded with. His counsel in pleading for leniency, said that Ryan had been under the influence of drink when he joined Fairweather the night the gelignite was taken. It was a question of drink and unfortunate association with Fairweather. Ryan was a married man with eight children, all under 16 years of age. "Accused,” said the Magistrate, "the position you were in as the man in charge of the gelignite makes it very difficult for the Court to accede to the request of your council for leniency. You seem to have been a decent, straight-going citizen up to now, however, and I hope you have had a lesson to last you. If liquor has this effect on you the sooner you leave it alone the better. If there had been anything against you before this, you would have received a sharp term of imprisonment. As it is, I will admit you to probation for two years. Take great care that drink does not enter into your life again.” Detective-Sergeant Hewitt said that Clyma had been in the company of the accused, but had taken no active part in the theft of the gelignite. Clyma had a good record and the detective-sergeant asked for leave to withdraw the charge. After counsel had referred to Clyma’s good character, the charge was withdrawn by leave of the Court. A Charge Dismissed. James Henry Fairweather pleaded not guilty to a charge of receiving a pair of gum-boots, the property-oLAbraham Wacht

ner, well knowing thorn to have been dishonestly obtained. Detective-Sergeant Hewitt said that the accused, a brother of Cyril Neville Fairweather, had collected Wachner’s goods and taken them out to the beach in his car. He was lucky he was not charged with being an accessory after the fact. Cyril Neville Fairweather, in reply to counsel, said that his brother’s first knowledge of the theft was when they told him the following night: that they would have to bury the goods at the beach in view of the police investigations. John Alexander Shanks gave corroborative evidence. Detective Lean said that the accused at a previous interview had denied going to the beach and said he knew nothing about the gum-boots.

Counsel said that the attitude of his client, ill-advised as it perhaps was, had been to protect his brother. Only because of that he had agreed to take the others out to the beach in his car—a very human action. He did not belong to the gang and so far had an unblemished record. The gum-boots in the car had been overlooked and ■when the accused found them he returned them to Shanks. The accused in evidence said that his brother had told him he was returning the goods to Wachner. Witness had said that if such were the case he would help him out. Witness had not assisted to bury the goods. To Dptective-Sergeant Hewitt: Witness denied that he had taken the goods out to the beach after an interview with the police. He had the boots in a back room, but Shanks and the others did not call at the house to collect them.

“Well, I suppose blood is thicker than water and although the accused knew what had been going on and that the police were making inquiries in the matter, I am of the opinion that the evidence just does not substantiate the charge of receiving stolen goods preferred against him,” said the Magistrate. ‘Therefore, with the greatest hesitation in my mind, the accused will be given the benefit of the doubt and the information will be dismissed.”