WINE ORDERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20182, 26 June 1928, Page 9

WINE ORDERS

YOUNG MAN’S LAPSE ADMITTED TO PROBATION False representations in regard to the taking of orders for wine were responsible for the appearance of Carl Ritter, alias William Malloy, before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. The allegations wore that in February, March and April last accused took orders for various amounts over £2 from people in Marton, Bulls and Wanganui. For the defendant Mr Treadwell stated he first thought the matter was a question between, debtor and creditor, and that a civil claim would follow. He was not aware that the defendant had made »opre.ientations that he was acting for the Crown Wine Company, of Auckland, and under the circumstances a pica of guilty would be entered. The defendant had formerly been employed by tho W’ine company but he admitted when interviewed by the police, said Detective Walsh, that he was not its representative at the time of the offences. Owing to slackness he became short of money and converted money which he received for orders to his own use in order to pay his travelling expenses. Later when the wine did not come to hand, the customers got in touch with the company, which denied knowledge of the orders having been taken. Ritter was a single man 20 years of age, said the detective. He had not been before the court previously but his history was not of the best. He had evidently been led away by an older man, also a former employee of the company, and had been "flashing" round the country spending more than he could afford. Mr Treadwell asked the Bench to exercise his discretion and give the defendant another chance. It was the practice followed by judges and magistrates in an endeavour to reform rather than punish. For quite a time accused sent the money to the company, but he then found he could not pay his way.

The Magistrate said that he was prepared to adopt the suggestion of counsel and grant the defendant probation. Such a coffrse was not a "foregone conclusion" where there had been a scries of offences. It was hard sometimes to apply a rule which was based on the wisdom of extending leniency where there had been an impulsive act. A difficulty in the present case was removed by the fact that the. defendant’s former employer was prepared to take him back.

Ritter was admitted to probation for three years, two special conditions imposed being that he make restitution of £l5 6s to his employer and pay £lO 3s police