PROBATION GRANTED

Southland Times, Issue 22041, 14 June 1933, Page 4

PROBATION GRANTED

THEFT OF MAIL MATTER. POSTAL OFFICER CHARGED. Charges of the theft of a letter containing money and the detention of circulars were admitted by Cedric Garth Greenfield, aged 24, a postal official, at the Gore Police Court yesterday before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M. The case was dealt with summarily and accused was admitted to probation for three years. The charges were: That being a postal official he did on May 30 steal a postal packet; that he did contrary to his duty wilfully detain certain circulars on May 30 sent by the Post a;rd Telegraph Department to wit New Zealand Methodist Session circulars. Mr R. B. Bannerman, who appeared for the accused, asked that the first charge be reduced to one of common theft and that the second be brought under another section in order that the case might be dealt with summarily. Detective Sergeant D. J. Hewitt, for the police, said that no objection would be raised to counsel’s suggestion. The original informations would be withdrawn by leave of the Court and amended ones laid. The first charge was accordingly amended to the theft of a letter valued at £2 addressed to H. and J. Smith Ltd., Gore. The second charge was amended to one of neglecting to deliver circulars. Pleas of guilty were entered to each charge. The detective sergeant said that accused was employed as an exchange clerk in the local post office. On May 30 certain steps were taken to endeavour to detect the theft of mail matter which was becoming frequent at the Gore office. The position had been somewhat alarming and it had been deemed necessary to take steps to detect the culprit. The letter in question had been posted at Mataura on the afternoon train. Accused had been on duty to clear the mail from the train. He had handed in other letters, but put the one containing money in his pocket. He at first denied the theft, but later admitted it. The circulars referred to in the second charge were sent out by a visiting Maori choir. A large number were given to accused to deliver, but he took a considerable proportion of them home without delivering them. ‘‘This is a serious matter for the department,” said the detective sergeant. “People post these circulars and rely on them being delivered and then a postal official takes them home. Thefts from the post office are a very serious matter and are very hard to detect. People frequently post money to business firms and several weeks elapse before the accounts go out again and it is then almost impossible to trace the thefts. The legislature also looks on the matter as very serious and has deemed it wise to make most of the charges against postal officials indictable.” In this particular case, however, it had been decided that the country could be saved the expense of sending the accused to the Supreme Court and the charges had accordingly been reduced to bring the case under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Under these charges accused was liable to three months’ imprisonment or the Magistrate had the power to inflict reformative detention for a term.

Counsel said that the case had been very fairly stated by the police. There had been a considerable volume of theft at the Gore Post Office, but he did not think it could be suggested that the accused had been resposible for the numerous other occurrences as he had been employed in the telephone exchange and only for a very short time had been working in the mail room. Mr Bannerman suggested that it was purely an isolated affair and that accused had succumbed to temptation on this one occasion. Accused was 24 years of age and a married man with a family. He had been married when 19 years of age on a very small salary and at the time that he committed the offence he was receiving about £3 a week. His financial position had been very desperate as he had not been able to overtake the volume of debts incurred when he had married. He had taken this particular letter, but he had not opened it and counsel suggested that he might have returned' the letter had he not been taxed with the offence and no more would have been heard of the matter. So far as the circulars were concerned, he was given about 400 to deliver on the post round one morning and he had found it an impossible task. He delivered about 100 of them and took the remainder home. That afternoon he was put on to other duty. He had volunteered the information concerning this matter. Counsel said that accused had hitherto borne an excellent character. He was a first offender, he had lost his job and was a married man with family. Counsel asked for leniency. The case was adjourned until the afternoon for a report from the Probation Officer. When the Court resumed the Magistrate said that the Probation Officer did not recommend probation. Mr Bannerman said he thought that in all the circumstances probation might be granted. The Magistrate said that the theft of mail matter was made a serious matter because it was necessary for the post office to be above suspicion. The loss of letters caused considerable inconvenience and cast suspicion on everybody. It was an offence that was very hard to detect. It appeared that accused had been trying to pay off back debts which he possibly should not have attempted. It did not reflect on his character, however, but was rather ip his favour. It was rare that a postal official so charged was granted probation, but it was occasionally done in the Supreme Court. He proposed to treat accused as a first offender, which he hoped he was, and give him another chance because he thought that if he sent him to prison he would become a confirmed criminal. He would convict him and admit him to probation on the usual terms and conditions on the first charge and on the second he would convict him and order him to come up for sentence when called upon.