DECISION REVERSED

Waikato Times, Volume 120, Issue 19942, 20 July 1936, Page 8

DECISION REVERSED

l THEFT CASE DISMIbSED. i SUCCESSFUL REHEARING. i A BORROWED HARNESS. ('i'imes Representative.) TE AROHA, Saturday. Maintaining that the circumstances of the case did not point to theft at iall, Mr F. H. Levien, 5-31.. in the Te Aroha Magistrate‘s Court to—day quashed the conviction previously en—tered against Lancelot Goodyer and made an order for the return of the line inflicted. Charged with the theft of a set of breaking—in harness, Goodyer was brought before J.'sP. in the Te Aroha Court last month when the Bench stated that. “while there was an element 'of doubt they would neverthelless convict but would only impose a small tine of £2 and costs.” ’I‘hI‘OUSh his counsel Mr F. E. Burns, Goodyer applied for a rehearing which was heard to-day. John Clements, farmer, of Tatu—anui, stated that on June 12 he re—turned home t'rom the Morrinsville sale to he told by his wife that a strange man 'had Visited the barn and gone off with a has containing some—thing. He inspected the barn to find the harness missing and reported it to the police. Next day his wife identi’lled accused on the street in 'i‘e Aroha las the man seen at the barn. Ac—cused had previously been on his [property while horses were being 'broken in with this gear. Cross—examined by Mr Burns, Clements denied seeing Goodyfer at a previous sale and giving him permis—sion to borrow the geartilements' wife and daughter gave evidence, that they had seen Goodyer at the barn. It was true, however, that Goodyer had also seen them. Allan \\’. \\'is‘ht. cattle dealer, said the had given accused a lift to Clemlent‘s farm. Goodyer made no secret of the fact that he was going to thorrow the harness from Clements' place. His actions had been quite open and not consistent with theft. I Arrangement to Barrow. In evidence, Goodyer stated that he had four sets of similar harness but needed this particular set for a special young horse. He had met Clements at the Morrinsviile sale on June 5 and arranged to borrow it. When he later called for it ‘he Haw two women near the house but tlmli no notice of them. As soon as the young horse had been broken in, he would have returned the sear. . The Magistrate said the whole case revolved around whether Clements attended the Morrinsrille sale on June 5 and granted the loan there to Good—}‘er. Everybody seemed to lindw that Yl'joofiyer had this gear and the ques—{tion “as how it came into his posses—!sion. There had been nothing lurtive gainout his moVements. and none of the ielements usually associated with theft. {Defendant had openly stated to \\‘ight ithat he was going out to get the gear. 11-Ie could not see that Goodyer had lany intention of retaining the gear for lgood and he might have had every in—ltention of returning it as he said. Theft ment permanently depriving the owner 01‘ his chattel. This was not borne out in this case which would be dis—missed. ——.—