YOUTHS CAUGHT IN ORCHARD RAID.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18452, 1 May 1928, Page 1

YOUTHS CAUGHT IN ORCHARD RAID.

ONE STAYED AND AIDED ORCHARDIST; OTHERS OWNED UP NEXT DAY.

Caught at midnight in an orchard at Belfast, three Christchurch youths appeared in the Magistrate’s Court today on charges of theft. They were convicted on all charges, and on two of them fines were imposed. The names were suppressed. Mr 11. P. La wry, S.M., was on the Bench. Sub-Inspector Fitzpatrick prosecuted, and Mr Tracy represented the accused, who pleaded guilty. They were each charged with stealing a quantity of apples, valued at 2s, the property of Edwin Bramwell Ilickmott, and with damaging apple trees, the property of Hickmott, to the extent of 30s, thereby committing mischief. It was at midnight on April 5, said the sub-inspector, that the three accused were riding bicycles along the Main North Road, their apparent des tination being Stewart’s Gully. Passing through Belfast, they apparently decided to go in and get some fruit. Unfortunately for them, the night was a frost) r one, and Mr Hickmott was out collecting marrows. He caught the three youths in the orchard. One acted the man and stood his ground and expressed regret. This one set about helping Mr Hickmott until 2 o’clock in the morning, collecting marrows. The other cleared off, leaving their bicycles, which were impounded. They came back next day and gave their names and got their bicycles. “The young men all come from respectable families and occupy good positions in the city,” said the subinspector. Mr Tracy said that all were under 19 years of age. Although they had arrived at an age when they should have stopped such actions as that, Mr Hickmott had been good enough to say that the publicity that would eventuate from this would give him security from further depredation. Mr Ilickmott was satisfied that the three had realised the stupidity of their action. There was nothing that could be said in mitigation of the offence, but, at the same time, on account of their age, he would ask for the suppression of their names. The publicity of the case would, at least in one case, have consequences that would outweigh th’e seriousness of the offence. “It was a foolish thing to do—a boyish prank—but you are beyond the boyish stage,” said the Magistrate. On the mischief charge, the one who stood his grouftd was convicted and ordered to pay 10s damages. The other two were fined 30s and each ordered to pay 10s damages. On the theft charge all were convicted and discharged. The /me who stayed and helped the orchardist was not ordered to pay for the value of the apples, but the other two were ordered to pay 2s.