BICYCLE THEFTS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19598, 19 September 1933, Page 11

BICYCLE THEFTS

TWO CASES BEFORE COURT IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE ACCUSED The prevalence of bicycle thefts, and the difficulties the police had in tracing the persons concerned were referred to in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., when two such cases were brought under his notice. Leo Sylvester Hannan pleaded not guilty to a charge that on September 12 at Timaru he did steal a bicycle valued at £1 the property of some person or persons unknown. Reginald George Slade, a Timaru cycle dealer said that about 4 p.m., on September 12 accused came into his shop to dispose of a cycle he had m his possession. Accused said that ne had had the machine for about twelve months and that it had been paid foi. He agreed to take £1 for the cycle and signed the receipt as “B. Ross.” Accused said he was staying at the old Balmoral Hotel. Accused: What I told you was that I was booking into the Windsor Hotel, and you remarked that that was the old Balmoral. Witness said that he could not be sure whether accused said he was staying there or whether he told him that he intended to book in there. Richard J. McMahon, proprietor of the Windsor Hotel said that the accused had not booked in at the hotel. No Description. Constable Anderson said that when he Interviewed accused shortly after the sale of the bicycle, Hannan told him that he had purchased the machine at Addington, Christchurch, for about 25/-. He did not know anything about the man from whom he made the purchase, nor could he give any description. The name plate “Mansfield,” which denoted the make of the saddle on the machine, had been removed and was found in accused's pocket. Hannan had 10/2 in his possession when he was arrested, two hours after the police had heard of the sale. Detective Studholme said that after accused had sold the bicycle he booked into the Carlton Hotel under his correct name. James W. H. Halllday, barman at the Carlton Hotel, said he had found out accused’s name as a result of a conversation Hannan had had with another man at the hotel. He had seen Hannan sign his name on an art union ticket. To Detective Studholme: Witness knew the accused's name before the art union ticket was produced. In Trouble Before. Accused’s story was that he had been in trouble before and that was why he had gone under the name of Ross. After the bicycle deal he had gone to the Carlton Hotel where his proper name had become known. He had found that the tariff at the Carlton was suitable and had not carried out his original intention of staying at the Windsor. The reason the nameplate was pulled off the saddle r f the bicycle was that it was hanging loose and he was afraid of tearing his clothing. The Magistrate reserved his decision for half an hour. He said that he had considered whether there was any evidence to justify the conclusion that the bicycle had been stolen, or whether the bicycle could be believed to belong to any one other than the accused. The matter was one of circumstantial evidence. It was not always possible for a man to be seen actually stealing a bicycle or to trace the owner of it. The Court had the facts that the bicycle was sold by accused on arrival in Timaru. Hannan had given a false name to the dealer, and if the transaction had been an honest one there did not appear to be any reason for that action. Accused had offered as a reason the fact that he had been in trouble before, but that fact should not affect the purchaser in any way. Hannan's reason for the removal of the name plate from the bicycle was hard to swallow. He was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to show that the bicycle belonged to someone else. Accused had not entered the witness box. He did not know the man from whom he bought the cycle or where he lived. It was not customary to buy bicycles in the street in that manner and the accused must be convicted. Accused explained that he could not give the police a satisfactory answer regarding the purchase of the machine as three of them were talking to him at once, and he did not get a fair deal. He had worked under the name of Ross. If he was to be convicted he asked for leniency as he had never been in trouble over a bicycle before. “Bicycle thefts are very difficult to sheet home,” said the Magistrate. “The machines are taken from one tow’n to another, altered, and made very difficult to trace." Accused would be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for six weeks. An order was made for the payment of 10/2 to the dealer. Theft Admitted. The theft of a bicycle, the property of some person or persons unknown, from Oamaru on April 30, was admitted by Andrew Lay. Detective Studholme said that the accused had picked up the cycle in an Oamaru Street and had ridden it to Willowbridge where he had endeavoured to dispose of it for 10/-. Mr W. A. Cumming (Child Welfare officer) said he had known accused for 15 years when he was under the speaker’s guardianship. Good reports had been received regarding Lay while he had been working in the Oamaru and Southland districts as a farm labourer. He understood that latterly accused had been engaged in canvassing. He had been a decent fellow until the present lapse. The Magistrate said that the Courts had been regarding the offence as a very serious one and persons had been sent to prison without any option. He was loath to send Lay to gaol as it was his first lapse. He would be admitted to probation for twelve months.