HOTEL THEFTS

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 22730, 4 October 1945, Page 4

HOTEL THEFTS

YOUNG MAN CHARGED ADMITTED TO PROBATION As a sequel to inquiries made by Constable J. W. Hayes regarding recent thefts reported at two hotels in Hamilton a young man, aged 20, of Auckland, appeared before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, today, facing five charges of theft. At the conclusion of the hearing the magistrate suppressed the name. The young man was charged with the theft of a propelling pencil, valued at £1 12s 6d, a suitcase valued at £4 15s and contents valued at £l9, a quart bottle of beer valued at 2s, a camera and case valued at £4 17s 6d, and a pair of pig skin gloves, a box of cigars and an overcoat valued at £9 19s. Accused was represented by Mr W. IJ. King and pleaded guilty to each charge. Constable Hayes said that he arrested accused on the evening of September 22 and as a result traced the allegedly stolen property to his possession. In making inquiries he had found accused far from truthful. Returning to Civilian Life Accused was awaiting release from the Air Force, said Senior-Detective W. R. Murray, conducting the prosecution. A regrettable feature of the case was that he had proved untruthful. It was difficult to explain accused’s actions. He came from a good home. He had previously been given a chance when he came before the Children’s Court four years ago. Thefts from hotels were fairly common and caused great concern to guests.

“ I am at a loss to offer any explanation of this young man’s conduct,” said Mr King. “He comes of very well-respected parents. Up to the age of 15 years he was a particularly good boy at home.” Mr King said that accused’s father had been Serving with the Army while the boy was between the ages of 15 and 17 and his mother had been engaged in war work. Af the age of 16 he was concerned in a youthful escapade and appeared before the CHildren’s Court. Drinking; to Excess

Referring to the thefts at the hotels in Hamilton, Mr King said they were committed while accused was intoxicated. He was apparently in the habit of keeping company with several other young men and had been drinking to excess. Asking for leniency, Mr King said the young man had spent ten days in custody awaiting his appearance in Court. There was work offering for him in a position in which he would be directly under the control of his parents. “He seems to be a somewhat

spoiled boy,” the magistrate commented. “It appears he was not dealt with firmly enough in the Children’s Court in 1941. He should have been placed under supervision and not merely admonished and discharged.” In placing accused on probation, the magistrate warned him that he was receiving his last chance. If he did not observe the terms of probation he would be sent to Borstal for a considerable period. Accused was admitted to probation for two years and was directed to take out a prohibition order, renewing it at the end of the period of probation. In view of accused’s youth the magistrate suppressed his name.