THEFT OF BICYCLES.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18202, 1 March 1929, Page 12

THEFT OF BICYCLES.

REFORMATIVE TREATMENT ORDERED. Three charges of the thefts of bicycles, one the property of Reginald Sellwood, valued at £4, and two others, valued at £5 and £6 respectively, the property of persons unknown, were preferred against Gilbert Kpndal M. Mayo at the Timaru Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Air C. R. Orr-AValker, S.M., was on the Bench, and accused was represented by Mr J. Emslie. Accused elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded guilty to all the charges. Senior-Sergeant T. Gibson stated that on January 5, Sellwood’s bicycle was stolen from the premises at which he was working. Quite recently a portion of his bicycle was recognised on a bicycle at a school, and as a result of information received the police visited accused’s house, where they discovered a number of bicycles and parts. Some of the parts of Sellwood’s bicycle the accused had sold to a lad for 9/-. Mr Emslie said that the case was one of the inexplicable kind, where a man. who was well known, was suddenly called on to explain how certain articles came into his possession, and he was unable to say why he had taken them. He intended to ask two favours of the Court. One was to grant probation, and the other was to suppress accused's name. When approached by the police, accused admitted having taken three bicycles. For some time back accused had been struggling against the stream. He had incurred a big loss while in business in Waimate, and had now reached the top of the hill. Mr Emslie suggested that a monetary penalty might meet the case, or failing that, a term of probation.

The Magistrate said that in view of the Probation Officer’s report, it was impossible for him to grant probation. The thefts were particularly mean for a man in accused’s position. A fine was also out of the question. He had taken into consideration the facts stated in accused’s favour, and he had also read the testimonials submitted by neighbours of the accused, but he would have to sentence him to a term of reformative treatment. He would make the term as short as possible, and that would be six months. From no point of view could he see his way clear to make an order for the suppression of accused’s name. It was necessary that the name should be published, for the public had to be protected.