THEFT OF-IRON

Taranaki Daily News, 13 October 1934, Page 23 (Supplement)

THEFT OF-IRON

CONVICTION OF YOUNG FARMER. INCIDENT IN KAIMATA DISTRICT. The alleged theft of four sheets of corrugated iron worth 20s, the property of John Frederick Loveridge, Kaimata, led to P. A. T. McCracken, a young farmer, being fined £5, costs 16s, in the Inglewood Court yesterday before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. C. Winfield. Constable Longbottom stated that in July defendant purchased two stacks of hay from Mr. Loveridge, Kaimata. On one of the stacks there were four sheets of 7ft. corrugated iron. Defendant took the last load of hay away about August 20 and . loaded the iron also. Mr. Loveridge later missed the iron, and approached defendant who denied taking it. The iron was subsequently found on defendant’s property. Loveridge added that there was no question of the iron being included in the sale of the stack. After witness had placed the matter in the hands of the police defendant admitted that he had been foolish in taking the iron and offered to pay for it. There was no question of the iron being taken for a joke. Had defendant admitted taking the iron when first asked, witness would never have placed the matter in the hands of the police. He was determined, however, to find out who had taken the iron. He said the iron was in splendid order and was worth 'ss a sheet to witness, who would not, however, be surprised to hear that the iron could be bought new at 3s 6d. per sheet. The bargain was made for the hay as it stood, there being no mention of the iron. Defendant gave £2 10? for the hay in the two stacks. McCracken might have reasonably thought that the payment included the iron on top of the one stack, though witness did not consider that he should have. Witness did not know at the time that Downes had assisted in loading the hay. Witness denied that he said to McCracken: “Did you steal my iron?” He had said: “I sold you hay; I did not sell you any iron.” There was no ill-feeling about the matter at the time. McCracken could not have taken his question jocularly. Alfred Downes, carrier, Inglewood, gave evidence of having carted four sheets ‘of iron with the last load of hay for McCracken.

In cross-examination Downes said there was nothing sly or furtive about the cartage of the iron. Constable Longbottom produced a statement from McCracken which said he considered that he had bought the iron with the hay stacks. Cross-examined the constable said defendant had said that, in denying that he had taken th? iron, he was haying a joke with Loveridge. Mr. Winfield said the defence was that there was no intention to steal the iron. McCracken regarded the iron as his pro.perty and it was quite reasonable to suppose it had been thrown in with, the deal. When Mr. Loveridge met him casually and asked if he had stolen his iron McCracken took the matter as a joke and would admit that he gave Loveridge a denial. The next thing defendant knew was that the matter had been placed in the hands of the police. He went to the police and frankly made his statement. He was a man of good character.

McCracken, in evidence, valued the iron at 5s or 6s. He was well satisfied with the deal as the damaged stack turned out fairly well. When he heard that the matter was in the hands of the police he had interviewed Loveridge and

had offered to pay for the iron to avoid any trouble. He had not told Loveridge that he had been foolish to take the iron nor did he say he was sorry that he had denied having taken it. To the magistrate defendant said he had paid for the hay and Loveridge had no reason to be unfriendly with him. In fact Loveridge said he did not want to make trouble and advised witness to see the police. / Constable Longbottom said he was prepared to admit that defendant was a decent man, who lived a good life, and had never been in any trouble. J. D. Henry gave evidence of character. In convicting defendant, the magistrate said that McCracken had no reason whatever to think that Loveridge had a grudge against hint or was trying to bolster up a charge.. When he found the iron was missing he made inquiries aiid believing McCracken, when he said that he had not taken it, Loveridge had gone to the police. Mr. Woodward had no reason to believe that Mr. Loveridge was mistaken in his version of the conversation that had taken place, whereas defendant’s story would not bear water at all. He was satisfied that defendant did take the iron, feeling that it would never be missed, and that if it were the owner would not worry about it. That was a, practice only too common in the country where things often had to be left about. Neither Loveridge nor Downes claimed witness’ expenses, which the magistrate remarked was consistent with Loveridge s attitude throughout the case. A month was allowed in which to pay. No order was made for the return of the property as Loveridge did not ask for its return, remarking that the iron now had another lot of holes in it.