TOLD TWO STORIES.

Thames Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 18511, 1 June 1932, Page 2

TOLD TWO STORIES.

DEFENCE DISBELIEVED.

Theft of Tarpaulin.

NAME SUPPRESSION REFUSED

Very terse comment was passed by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., in the Thames Court to-day, when he stated straight ou't that he believed that the evidence given by the defence in a case where a man was charged with the theft of a‘'tarpaulin from th e Railway Department, was concocted. He absolved counsel from any participation in this act, but expressed his very strong disbelief of the defendant and his witnesses. A request for the suppression ol defendant’s name when a conviction had been entered, was summarily refused, the S.M. also commenting on this aspect freely. William Tell Monigatti was charged with the theft of a tarpaulin, valued at £6/5/1, the property of the Railway Department. Counsel for defendant said that his client had purchased the tarpaulin, in answer to an advertisement, in Wellington for 10/-. He asked that the matter be adjourned, pending the production of evidence for the defence.

Sergt. Macnamara said that defendant had been seen in Pollen Street by the ex-stationmaster, with the tarpaulin covering a truck, and when interviewed had said that he had found it two years ago between Levin and Otaki.

Michael Edward Carroll, formerly stationmaster in Thames, gave evidence that on April 6, at 10 a.m., he noticed a lorry in Pollen Street with what appeared to be a railway tarpaulin covering some cases. Witness pursued the lorry, which pulled up at a bowser. Defendant, when asked, said that he owned the tarpaulin, and said that he did not know it was a railway one. Two other men came from the front of the lorry and defendant then stated that he Lad picked it up on the road between Otaki and Levin during the Easter holidays of 1930. A man named Smith corroborated Monigatti’s story. When a railway tarpaulin was condemned it had a white line painted from corner to corner, and the word “Condemned” stencilled on it in four places. This sheet had not been condemned, but had been imitated, and an attempt made to obliterate the identification number and also the red “X” on each railway tarpaulin.

Cross-examined, witness said that the sheet had not been hired out, as

far as .he knew. It was possible for a man to have a sheet in his possession after hiring and not returning it. In witness’s., opinion, the sheet had been stolen, but there was no difference between a sheet in use or one on hire. However, no one could purchase a sheet without its number being taken.

Witness, when asked to swear that

it was a stolen tarpaulin, said that he thought that was the decision o' the magistrate; however, from the Department’s point of view, it was likely to have been a stolen tarpaulin. It might have been out of the possession of the Department for 10 years. Constable Smith said that on April 6, Mr Carroll rang him and he saw Smith and Monigatti, who stated that they found the tarpaulin. It had not been altered in any way Whilst it hat been in defendant’s possession. This concluded the police case-

William Hector Mitchinson, market gardener, identified the tarpauljm, and said that he was staying with Monigatti in Island Bay. A trip by car was meditated, and, on seeing an advertisement in a Wellington paper, defendant and witness saw a tent and the tarpaulin erected in the backyaro of a house. They bought both for 10/-. It was used on the trip tD Auckland, and later stored in witness’s shed until Monigatti and witness dissolved partnership. Cross-examined by Sergt. Macnamara, witness said that the advertisement appeared in February, 1931. Witness could not remember the exact number of the house from which the tarpaulin was bought, but could go back to it again. Witness could identify the tarpaulin by various patches. Mrs Monigatti gave evidence that her husband had two tarpaulins, one of which he purchased in Wellington and one he found.

At this stage, Sergt. Macnamara objected to counsel leading the witness, the Bench stating that he concurred, and that the whole force of witness’s evidence had been destroyed, and that he did not believe it. Witness then gave her version of what had transpired.

Cross-examined, witness adhered to her story that her husband had purchased the lorry. She had handled both tarpaulins.

Counsel for defendant said that in all probability the advertisement could be produced, and probably the seller of the tarpaulin could be traced.

The Bench said the evidence of the defence was not to be believed. The tarpaulin was obviously a railway one and the defendant told two different stories about it. The tarpaulin had been altered and the numbers obliterated .

“There is quite sufficient evidence to convict defendant,” said the Bench.

Counsel protested that his client had not had a fair chance, since he had not had time to get evidence. The Bench said that the case hacT been frequently adjourned, and defendant had had ample time.

The Bench convicted accused and admitted him to probation, reparation to be made of the value of the tarpaulin .

Counsel asked for the suppression of Monigatti’s name.

“Quite out of the question,” said the Bench. “I would not dredm of it in such a case. I certafnly will not

make any such order.” Mr Carroll, on behalf of the Department, claimed £2, the reward for the

conviction of theft of a tarpaulin, and his travelling allowance, £l/2/6, and £l/7/6 fare, the total, with restitution, amounting to £lO/14/8. Time was asked for to pay, the police suggesting a term of imprisonment as a default. Finally £1 . per COMMENT BY BENCH. | month was agreed to.