FAKE BURGLARY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 655, 6 May 1929, Page 11

FAKE BURGLARY

AN UNUSUAL PROSECUTION Aii unusual charge was preferred at Thames Police Court, London, when Joel Zweier and Herman Miller were accused of: “Conspiring, with others, to do an act which tended/to produce a public mischief —viz., did cause certain cloth and other property to be removed from No. 1, Old Church Road. E., in such circumstances as to suggest that it had been stolen, and therefore did give false information to the police of the alleged theft, and caused public officers of the Metropolitan Police Force to devote their time and energy, for which they were paid out of the public funds, to the following of false clues, and the investigation of false allegations, thereby temporarily depriving the public of the services of such paid officers, and rendering innocent persons liable to suspicion and arrest upon a charge which they, the said Joel Zweier and Herman Miller, knew to be false.’' It was stated that the charges preferred against the men were of stealing and receiving certain property. Zweier carried on business as a manufacturer of ladies’ mantles at Old Church Road, and Miller was a provision dealer at Hessell Street, E. On December 4 last year, in response to a telephone message, detectives went to Zweier’s premises, and were informed that there had been a burglary and that a quantity of valuable goods had been stolen. Prosecuting counsel described the premises, and said Zweier took the officers to the top room and pointed out a skylight through which, he said, the thieves had broken in. The skylight was protected by a steel grid, and it was noticed that two bars had been cut away. The detectives examined the roof, and noticed that it was impossible to obtain access to it from outside except by the use of an inordinately iong ladder. They also noticed that the roof was entirely covered with sheet zinc, on which there were no marks of anybody having been there. There were other indications in relation to bolts, etc., that Zweier’s statements were not true. Zweier subsequently made a claim on an insurance company for £3,624. On February 1 detectives’ called cn Miller, who denied having any cloth which did not belong to him, but in an outhouse they found eight cases of what appeared to be eggs. On examination, however, it was found that the cases contained cloth, covered with shavings. Zweier, who was also there, said to Detective-Sergeant Rye, “Help me. I am in trouble.” Miller said. “He asked me to hide the cloth. He made a burglary.”