THEFT OF COAT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 813, 6 November 1929, Page 11

THEFT OF COAT

CULPRIT SEEN WEARING IT BY OWNER TRANSPORT DRIVER FINED Some months after the theft of his overcoat from a billiard salt on in Newton, the owner saw a man wearing it in the street. He informed the police and John William Wynd appeared on summons at the Police Court this morning to anewer a charge of theft. "Wynd, a motorman employed by the Transport Board, was charged with steiUing a coat valued at £6 2s, belonging to Edward Campbell Eaton on May 27. Mr. Sullivan appeared for defendant and said that, though he was admitting the facts, there had been no criminal intent.

According to the complainant, Eaton, he had left his coat hanging on the wall of the billiard saloon while playing. After his game, he had missed the coat and, after making inquiries in the rooms, he had gone to the police. He had visited the saloon practically every night for two months hoping to see someone wearing the coat, and eventually caught sight of Wynd in an hotel near the billiard saloon on September 20. He had informed the police. “The coat has been lengthened,” added witness. Frederick Foley, proprietor of the billiard saloon, said that Wynd had played there occasionally. He had been seen there since Eaton’s complaint of the loss of his coat had been made.

In an interview he had with defendant, said Acting-Deteotive Craigie, the man had admitted taking the coat. He had taken it, thinking it was his own and had not found out his mistake until he had arrived outside his gate at Herne Bay. He had returned to the billiard-room the next day, telling the marker that he had lost his own coat, having taken another in error. According to the statement, the marker had told him that no loss had been reported. Wynd’s reason for wearing the coat was that he hoped the owner would accost him, when an exchange could be arranged.

Mr. Sullivan admitted that the weakness of the case lay in the fact that defendant had had the coat lengthened. His reason was that he wanted to wear it to give the owner a chance to recognise it, and it had been too short for him. Counsel called a witness to show that Wynd had been wearing a coat when he had entered the billiard room. Mr. Sullivan asked that defendant be discharged under the First Offenders’ Act. There was precedent lor such a course being taken. Everything pointed to there being no criminal intent and Wynd would lose his position if a conviction were entered. He was a married man with four children.

Mr. F. Tv. Hunt, S.M., pointed out that in the two instances when defendants had been given the benefit of the First Offenders Probation Act, the articles stolen hr.n been valued at 3s and Is Id. This time it was £6. “Defendant may have thought it was his coat when he first took it,” said the magistrate, “but an honest man would have returned it to where he got it, or taken it to the police.” Wynd was fined £5, increased at Mr. Sullivan’s request to £5 Is, to permit of an appeal being lodged. Default of the fine was fixed at one month’s imprisonment, and defendant was given a week to find the money.