LIE AFTER LIE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 693, 19 June 1929, Page 11

LIE AFTER LIE

POLICE MISLED BY THIEF TOLD THREE STORIES “He told me that many lies that I did not know what I could place reliance on,” asserted Detec-tive-Sergeant Bickerdike. giving evidence against Alexander John Robertson, who was charged with theft at the Police Court this morning. Robertson, aged 19, appeared for sentence on a charge of stealing £l9 14s 2d from H. W. Dixon at. Birkenhead on June 13. Mr. Moody appeared for him and asked leave to change his former plea to not guilty. Counsel’s request Yvas granted and Horatio William Dixon was called as the first police witness. Mr. Dixon, a railway employee, said that he was secretary of the Sick and Accident Fund. In that capacity he had charge of money which he kept locked in bags in his house in Birkenhead until his balance at the end of each month. One of the bags (produced) was identified by witness. It was still locked, but had been cut open and emptied. Early on the evening of June 13 witness found the drawers of the wardrobe w'here he kept the money pulled out and the contents strewn all over the floor. The money had been taken from one bag, but the others were untouched. Robertson was described by Mr. Dixon as a friend of the family who was staying at witness’s home until lie could get a ship to work his passage to America. On June 13 witness and his wife had both been away from the house for several hours. On the day after the theft had been committed, Mr. Dixon continued, he had been called to the Birkenhead Police Station, where he was told that the youth wished to confess that he had taken the money. "When this was said accused had nodded assent. CONFLICTING STORIES Detective Allsop produced conflicting statements made by accused. In one he had denied taking the money. In another he had admitted the theft, saying that he had gained an entry to the house by means of a window. He now denied the theft again. At the time when accused had made the statement admitting his guilt, he had given three explanations of what he had done with the money. Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike gave evidence on much the same lines as the previous witness. Mr. Moody said that the evidence looked conclusive and strong. The case was unique, but he would put accused in the box to make his explanation. Robertson, under oath, again said that he had not taken the money. He had told the police he did because they had assured him that if he did so everything would be all right. His stories about disposing of the money were false. He had told them because he thought the police would not investigate further if he reimbursed Mr. Dixon. He had never had the money. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., convicted the youth. “I doubt whether he is fit for probation,” he remarked. “He has committed what I consider perjury and he cast aspersions on the police.” Robertson was remanded for sentence until Saturday and the probation officer was instructed to prepare a report in the meantime.