THEFTS FROM CAMP

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20495, 11 May 1938, Page 12

THEFTS FROM CAMP

OFFENCES NEAR PIO PIO NATIVE BEFORE COURT TWO YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT Tli re e charges of theft, alleged to Jia\e been committed near Pio Pio on December 29, 1 937. were preferred aga.nst a native. Tuhaka Aropa Piripi 1,54 • "f Miranda, in tlie Supreme Court. Hamilton, yesterday, before the cliiej Justice. Sir Michael Myers. Accused was also charged with receiving Hie property having known il lo be • Jisluuicsi | y obtained. Accused, who pleaded guilty, was represented cjy Mr Noble ~mi . and Mr H. 1- Gillies appeared for Ihe Crown. •Hr Gillu-s stall’d that the alleged offences had occurred at a public works camp at the Malioenui Gorge, between I e Kuili and New Plymouth. At Christmas time the workmen left for Iheir holidays and did not return until January 9, when they found that Ihf3 tents had been broken into and several articles stolen. Just before Christmas a man named Churton was driving his car to tlm Waikato, when lie picked up a man who was later identified as Hie prisoner. Churton was asked to take him to Miranda and did so. Up stayed with Piripi during the Christmas holidays. Churton later decided lo go haymaking in Taranaki and offered to take Piripi with him. Dn one occasion near Pio Pio, Piripi left Churton and later returned with a large swag. Churton would not have anything to do with Ihe swag. Dealer Approached Lafei’ a second-hand dealer in Auckland was asked by the prisoner to buy certain art’des. On that occasion the prisoner gave a false name. The police were keeping a watch for the articles stolen from the.camp and eventually traced the prisoner through them to his home. Churton was already serving a term of probation, having been found guilty of being an accomplice in the charges. Several articles produced in Court, were! dentifled by Ernest William Wyatt Hughes, who was in charge of the camp, and by Eric John Garlick, assistant engineer in the Public Works Department stationed at Te Kuiti. Evidence of having picked the prisoner up in his car near Manurewa, two or three days prior to Christmas, was given by Alexander James Churtnn. a labourer, of North Auckland. Piripi persuaded witness to go to his home at Miranda, and he stayed there fur several days. Just IloTore New Year witness and the prisoner set out for Taranaki to look for harvesting work. When I hey stopped near Pio Pio witness slept in the car. There were some tents in the vicinity, and early in the morning (lie prisoner put a swag of property on the carrier of Ihe car. Instead nf going to Taranaki witness returned with Piripi to Miranda. Some of the articles produced in court were in Piripi’s house. The articles had later been taken in witness’s car and sold to a second-hand dealer at Onehunga. In reply to Mr Noble, witness said he % did not go on to Taranaki as he was suspicious of Piripi. Witness did not know where the property came from. Mr Noble: Are you sure you did not take it yourself? Witness: Do you think I did? Under further cross-examination witness denied having stolen the property. William Leatham Donaldson, a sec-ond-hand dealer, of Onehunga, described the visit paid to his shop by Piripi. and identified several articles produced in court. On that occasion the name and ad lress given were “Arlan Lancelot Priestley, 16 Grey's Avenue.” Corroborative evidence of having arrested Piripi was given by Constable D. N. McDonald and Constable R. D. L. Jones, both of Auckland. Accused stated that he and Churton had picked up a tramp on the Great South Road and given him a rid-*, in*Churton's car. The tramp had no money, hut paid for his ride with a sack of property. That was the property which Piripi had sold. On making inquiries for 16 Grey’s Avenue witnesses found that from No. 2 to No. 24 was occupied by the Auckland Town Hall. This concluded the case for the Crown. Addressing Jhe jury, Mr Noble stated that there was no doubt that the stolen property had been traced to accused’s house, but he submitted that there were grounds to doubt who committed the theft. Apart from Churton’s statements, there was no evidence to show that accused had been at Pio Pio, and even Churton had been proved as an accomplice. Piripi had given a complete explanation and had not endeavoured to hide anything when interviewed by the police. After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty on three counts of theft. “Your character is disclosed by your previous record,”'commented His Honour. “You have practically qualified for habitual criminality, and if you come before the court again you will be treated as such.” Accused was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour.