£10 FINE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 163, 22 May 1940, Page 5

£10 FINE

FARM HAND PLEADS GUILTY TO THEFT RESTITUTION TO BE MADE Messrs G. A. Brabant and C. G. Lucas, Justices of the Peace, were on the Bench on Monday morning when Norman Langley Rowland, 41, a farm hand, ol' Otakiri, appeared to answer a charge of stealing a parcel containing two bolts of cream linen, valued at £7 17s Bd, the property of RadeiifTe and Rennet-.. Auek land. Accused, Avho had been remanded on Thursday, was represented by Mr G. Otlcy. A plea of guilty was entered and accused elected to be dealt with summarily. Prosecuting, Sergeant M. Farrell said accused visited Auckland towards the end of last month. He Avas avcll known to the manager of Messrs Radcliffe and Renner and he I called at the warehouse at mid-day on April 29th. There Avas a parcel of linen in the passage and at about 2 p.m. it Avas discovered that the parcel was missing. Enquiries were started and the accused was interviewed at Otakiri. He at first denied knowledge of the linen but later consented to his effects being searched. The linen had then been found. Accused had had preA'ious eonA r ictions and was at present on probation. "A Stupid Offence." Mr Otley said that the stolen property, Avhich had been recovered by the police, could be returned. Accused. avlio was a farm hand, went to Auckland to undergo an X-ray for a stomach complaint and afterwards had evidently got into bad company. He became the worse for liquor and it Avas Avhile in this state that he had committed the offence. Accused had given his consent to a search of his effects when he kneAV that the stolen goods would be found. "This oifence seems to be rather a stupid one." said Mr Otley. "ile didn't want the linen and therj was no motive or purpose in it.'' Mr Otley asked the Bench to t.jke into consideration the fact that accused did not benefit by the theft and suggested that an extension of accused's present probation order would be sufficient punishment. As an alternative the Bench might see fit to inflict a line in lijsu of imprisonment. The Bench then fined Rowland £10 Sergeant Farrell pointed out that although the property had been recovered the linen had been cut and the firm to Avhom it belonged should be compensated for the mutilation. Restitution was fixed at £2 and default for the line at three weeks' imprisonment.