STEALING AND RECEIVING

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 699, 8 May 1916, Page 8

STEALING AND RECEIVING

j PROCEEDINGS IN COURT. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR j SENTENCE. The Magistrate's Court had the apI pearance of a combined hardware j and drapery establishment this morning, owing to the police having made arrests on charges of stealing and receiving. The articles of hardi ware comprised a fender, an electric iron, almps, and candlesticks, in addition to a quantity of tools, while a heap of furniture and drapery contained quilts, curtains, towels, cane chairs, and cushions. The offences were alleged to have been committed between March 1 and April 2(1 last. Messrs W. S. Lovell-Smith and R. B. Walker, J.P.'s, were on the Bench, and Chief Detective Herbert prosecuted. The informations were as follow: David McNally (Mr Macdougall) was charged with the theft of hardware goods, valued at £sl 11/-, the property of Messrs E. Reeee and j Sons, and also with receiving from Frederick Harris Saunders a quan- ] tity of furnishing drapery valued at £4O, well-knowing the same to have I been dishonestly obtained. Frederick Harris Saunders (Mr M. Donnelly) was charged with stealing a quantity of furnishing drapery ' valued at £4O, the property of Gees, ! Ltd., and also with receiving from ! David McNally a quantity of hardware goods valued at £sl 11/-, well knowing the same- to have been dishonestly obtained. Edmond Gee, managing director of Gees, Ltd., said he knew Saunders, who had been shop manager for about 1(3 months past. The two boxes of paint brushes (produced) were offered to witness for sale by Saunders on April 22 last. Witness, who was in Saunders's oflice at the time, purchased the brushes at 8/0 a dozen. Being suspicious, witness consulted Mr Reecc, and as the result of this the police were communicated with. The private mark on the box containing the brushes was erased when witness saw it. Witness was at Saunders's house on May 1 last, with the detectives, and he saw them take possession of the goods produced in court. On the same day witness handed over some packages of upholsterer's nails which he found in Saunders's office. These were notj the property of the linn. Edward Thomas Recce, warehouse manager for the firm of E. Reece and j Sons, said the accused had been in; the employ of his firm as salesman; for nine or 10 years. He left on] April 20, 1916, owing to his having enlisted in the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces. The hardware goods; produced in court were the property j of the firm, and the accused had no authority whatever to pass the goods over to Saunders. During the time | the accused was employed by the | firm he had a key by which he could enter the premises by the Lichfield Street door. The goods stolen were valued at £sl 11/-. Cross-examined. by Mr McDougall, witness said that £sl 11/- was the! cost price of the goods. At the time of enlisting nothing was known against accused. His character was; considered very good. Detective-Sergeant Connolly said he arrested the accused on the 2nd j inst., and accused admitted stealing the goods. He said he had given them j to Saunders in exchange for other goods. Witness recovered most of the articles produced from Saunders's house, but a box of copper handles was recovered from Williams Brothers, which firm had purchased them from Saunders for £Gj 15/-. At the Detective Oflice, in thej presence of Saunders, the accused said he had given the goods to Saunders, and Saunders said that was! correct.

Mr Macdougall said the accused pleaded guilty, and asked for bail. The Bench said that bail would be considered later. The case against Frederick Harris Saunders was then proceeded with. Edward Thomas Reecc said that he took possession of two boxes of paint brushes from Mr Gee. On examination witness found that the brushes had been taken from his slock, and he then communicated with the police. He was present with the detectives at accused's house on May 1, and the goods produced in court were then taken possession of. Witness said that the Lichfield Street entrance of his firm was directly opposite Gees, Ltd. Detective-Sergeant Connolly said that in company with acting-Detec-tive Torrance he arrested the accused, who admitted receiving the goods produced from McXally. Most of the goods were recovered at the j accused's house. The accused said j he had received three rolls of duck cloth and fourbuffalo hidesfrom Mc-; Nally, and he had sold them to A. lleay for I'l3 112/0. Only part of one: of the hides had been recovered. Edmund Gee gave evidence to the effect thai on May 2 he went to McXally's house, and there he saw a large quantity of furnishing drapery, j the property of his firm. Detective-Sergeant Connolly said! he arrested the accused on the Ist inst., and re-arrested him on the 3rd; insl. He admitted stealing the goods, in court from the premises of Gees,; Ltd., and said he had given them to McXally, who was preset. I at the time. McXally said this was correct. The accused Saunders pleaded; guilty to each charge, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sen-; tence. Bail was allowed—self inj £IOO, and two sureties of £.">().

The charge of receiving was then i brought against McXally. Evidence was given by Edmund; Gee to the effect that Saunders had no authority to give the goods in question to the accused. Detective-Sergeant Connolly said! that when arrested, the accused ad-i mitted receiving the articles from!

Saunders. Saunders was present, and said this was correct. * The accused pleaded guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed—- , self in £IOO and two sureties of £3O.