STOREKEEPER ON TRIAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1038, 31 July 1930, Page 12

STOREKEEPER ON TRIAL

CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS HEARING CONTINUED Tho trial of the Clevedon storekeeper, Wilfred Lees, on charges of receiving stolen grain, motor spirit, kerosene and oil, from Dominic Daniel Petty, formerly storeman of a City store, was continued before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury in the Supreme Court today. The value of the wheat, oats, chaff and maize Lees is alleged to have received was £214, and the kerosene, benzine and lubricating oil involved was valued at £l2l. Mr. V. N. Hubble conducted the prosecution and Mr. Goldstine appeared for the accused. Dominic Danit*l Petty, who was formerly in charge of A. M. Paterson’s store, stated that irregular transactions with Lees commenced in May or June last year and continued until within a week of leaving his position in April this year. He added that he had confessed to theft of goods from the store. After he received notification from the National Mortgage and Agency Coy., Ltd., of tho stopping of Lees’s credit, he was approached by accused with an offer of 15s a sack for grain, some of which was in firstclass order and some full of weevil. The ordinary price of the grain was 24s a sack. .He asserted that Lees had taken more than one sack on the first occasion. After that Lees, who knew the goods were dishonestly obtained, might have obtained supplies of grain and benzine from him twice a week, witness retaining the money, which amounted to approximately £IOO. Lees had paid 12s 6d a case for gasoline and 10s a case for kerosene. In April after witness had left his position, Lees called at his home and stated that the detectives had visited him and knew an about the business, ile accompanied Lees on a visit to Mr. Paterson, to whom Lees admitted he had had a lot of grain and offered to pay for it.

Under cross-examination, Petty refuted the suggestion that he had made unauthorised cash sales or gifts to other people besides LeesTwo statements made by Lees were read by Detective-Sergeant Doyle. In the second document Lees denied all knowledge that Petty was stealing goods from the store. He added that he had approached Mr. Paterson and Petty undertook to make restitution. The detective added that Lees had asked him to do his best to prevent a. prosecution in the interests of his business and the health of his mother t or the defence Mr. Goldstine denied mat Lees had any knowledge that the goods sold to him by Petty were dishonestly obtained.# “CUSTOMER OF FIRM”

I™ fitness-box this morning Lees -aid that following his meeting with ietty In June last year he was introduced to the National Mortgage and Agency Company, Ltd.’s manager as a customer of the firm. He bought a grain for cash on that occasion and subsequently he obtained supplies on credit, sometimes signing for the goods and on other occasions not doing s .°* . T *? e man ager had informed him that Petty, who had full charge of the store, would supply any goods witness required. A quantity of grain that was infested with weevil had been offered lnm by Petty at 15s a sack, for which he paid cash. In November last Petty he had a bargain in four sacks of Opotiki onions, which were worth 15s a sack, but which he offered to witness for £2. The manager of Lewisham’s had instructed him to fix up with Petty for supplies of grain obtained from tho store. The gasoline, kerosene and oil which he purchased from Petty were paid for xn cash at the rate of 14s a case. 12s a case and 4s a gallon respectively, which witness considered was the full market price. He received no receipts. On another occasion when Petty was not at the store he paid the storeman £4 for five cases of gasoline, and subsequently received a credit note for 10s, but the balance of £3 10s was not acknowledged. Hollowing Petty’s suspension from the store, he borrowed £5 from witness, promising to repay it in a day or so. The money was not repaid, however, and when witness asked for the cash, Petty declared that inquiries were being made concerning the shortage of stocks at the store, but that he was innocent.

Edward W. J. Stuckey, who assisted Petty in the store for seven months, stated that Petty engaged him and paid him. He added that Mr. Paterson and Mr. Lewisham must have seen him working in the store, and he was under the impression that Paterson employed him. When witness handed out supplies of benzine some customers were required to present orders, but others were not. In cash transactions no orders or receipts were taken or given, but after Petty’s arrest instructions were given that nothing was to be supplied from the store without orders being presented. He recalled supplying Lees with five cases of benzine for which accused paid cash at the rate of 14s a case, but no receipt was given to Lees. (Proceeding.)