MING THEFT

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 227, 24 April 1933, Page 4

MING THEFT

STRATFORD RACES INCIDENT

"Dud" Tickets Presented at Tote

YOUNG MEN APPEAR IN COURT

At the Stratford races on April 1. No. 4 in the sixth race, March Alone, did not pay a dividend. In the seventh race, No. 4, Merry Way, passed the post first and paid a dividend. Two young men who had held two 10s each on March Alone also held cno 10s ticket each on Merry Way., and when they collected the dividend they presented the four "i'ud" tickets from the previous race and received a pay-out.

At the Stratford Magistrate's Court 10-day, before Mr. W. If. Woodward.! S.M., the Iwo young men, vvl'o hail I from districts north of New Plymouth, j and. whose names were suppressed, j were charged with the ihef- of £l4! ISs, the property of the Stratford j Racing Club. Mr. J. IT. Shent (New; Plymou'th) appeared for defendants,! who pleaded guilty. j A fine of £lO was inflicted on each j defendant. ! "Actions Caused by Drink" \ Detective Mciklejohn said, that the I sixth race at the Stratford races on j April 1 was won by No. 4. March | Alone. The seventh race was also won j bv No. 4. Merry Way. Accused had I four 10s tickets on No. 4 in the sixth j race ,and two 10s tickets on No. 4| in the last race. When Marry Way' won .one of the defendants placed the two tickets on top of the four "dud" tickets and banded them in to the i cashier. The last race was run considerably later than the scheduled time, j and dusk was beginning to fall, so! that in the rush to pay out. the teller! had not noticed that four of the tic-J kets were issued on No. 4 in the pre- i vious race. The sum of £22 7s had « been collected by accused, whereas i they were onlv entitled to collect £7 j 9s. The surplus amount of £l4 18s j was the amount which thev were, i charged with stealb'tr. One defendant j had been very candid nbou't the mat-j tor and had said that h?« actions bad j been caused by drink. The other de- j fendnnt, however, had not been so i candid and had been inclined to put j un a story and lie about the matter, j Poth defendants were inclined to j blame the nav-out man. Tf it bad not; been for valuable information given to j officials of the raeinc club the men j would have been undetected. It, was j rather a daring thing to put over, said the detective. "More Stupid Than Criminal" Mr. Shent submitted that the very fact that defendants had gone about the town afterwards, apparently st'll in their fuddled state, bragging about their action, was sufficient to indicate the whole affair was more sturn'd than j criminal. Roth defendants were men \ of good character, holding positions of I trust, and in view of that fact be submitted that the case was one where the provision for suppression of names could be annlied. The money had I been refunded in full by both defend-j ants. Under the circumstances be did j not consider that the court would in-J flirt a term of imprisonment. and j submitted that a term of probation j would be sufficient punishment. j Sergeant Kelly said that, as nroba-1 tion officer in Stratford, he would not j recommend that defendants be placed under probation. The maximum fine provided in the Statute, for the of- I fence was £2O, or any term of im- i prisonment that the court might in- j flict. | "Thou Shall Not Steal" ! The Magistrate: There is unforiu- j nately a large body of people who do j not regard such an action as theft which it is. It seems that, unfortunately many such people have never j understood the spirit of the Command- I ment: Thou shalt not steal. They j think they are obeying it in the letter i but not in the spirit. They have never j understood the spirit of it. The two j defendants are men of that kind—not | essentially honest but also not essen- j tially criminal. It must be brought J home to people, by the penalty I pro- j pose to inflict that frauds of this i kind, although appearing to be inflicted only on a machine, but really on : the racing club, are regarded as theft. I agree with counsel that people of that mentality only need a lesson and they are generally not found before the'court again, and I think that these young men will profit by this lesson. I also agree that possibly the harm wrought to them may be out ot proportion to their offence. At the same time the penalty must be such as to deter others which may be likeminded. I do not intend to send defendants to gaol, as they are first offenders and have good reputations. I propose however, to order a suppression of* their names and to inflict a severe fine of £lO each." Time was allowed in which to pay.