DISHONESTLY OBTAINED

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume XXVI, Issue 7901, 12 September 1929, Page 2

DISHONESTLY OBTAINED

NEWSPAPERS FROM A RUNNER BOY RESTITUTION ORDERED To a charge of having received from a paper-boy newspapers to the value of £2 17s 4d, well knowing that they had been dishonestly obtained, Albert Harden, a married man, pleaded guilty before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., at the monthly sitting of the Waihi Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday. Accused, who was not represented by counsel, elected to be dealt with summarily. When his name was called in the morning Haiden did not appear, and a note in which he stated that he would not be at court was read. The offence being an indictable one, however, the case had to be adjourned until the afternoon in order to allow the accused to be notified that his presence was imperative, and if it had not been possible so to notify him a warrant for his arrest would have been applied for. Describing the circumstances of the case as somewhat peculiar, Sergeant D. D. Calwell, who presecuted, said that Harden had been a customer of a newsagent, but had apparently been struck off the list because he had not paid his account for papers. He then approached the runner, a young boy, and induced him to leave papers at his house, giving him a few shillings now and then. Accused knew he had no right to do this, but had said in a statement he had made to the police that he had intended to pay for the papers later. He (the sergeant) did not think that Harden had considered payment until he had been approached by the owner of the papers. Accused had been taking three papers daily for some of the time. When the lad concerned was before the Children’s Court that morning, charged with the theft of the papers, continued the sergeant, he had mentioned that it was more the fault of the accused than that of the boy. In fact, there was such a fine distinction that he really thought that the accused should have been charged with theft. Harden was not previously known to the police, but he respectfully suggested that the case was one that called for some punishment. The magistrate imposed a fine of £2 10s and costs and ordered that restitution be made. One month in which to pay was allowed.