THEFT OF BUTTER

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 45, 25 June 1947, Page 4

THEFT OF BUTTER

FACTORY HANDS IN COURT MEN’S GOOD WAR RECORDS Two factory hands who had been employed at the dairy factory of the Rangitaiki Plains Dairy Company, Ltd., at Edgecombe, pleaded guilty in the Police Court at Whakatane on Monday before Messrs. C. S. Armstrong and L. D. Lovelock, J.’s P., to charges of the theft of butter from the factory.

The Bench announced that in view of the good war record of both men and the fact that they had lost their jobs as a result of the offence each man would be convicted and discharged without penalty. Robert Henry Bidois, aged 26, pleaded guilty to taking 71bs. of butter on June 17 and 121bs. of butter on June 20.

Leslie Robertson, aged 29, pleaded guilty to taking 71bs. of butter on May 31. Sergeant Farrell stated that for some time past the officials of the Dairy Company had been concerned about the theft of quantities of butter. A watch had been kept and it was ascertained that butter was being stolen between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m. The police and company officials had kept a watch and discovered the thefts-by both accused. Not The Only Offenders In fairness to both men, added Sergeant Farrell, he wanted to make it clear that they were not the only men involved, but they were the only ones detected and would have to stand the brunt. Those persons who were the receivers of the stolen butter were worse then the men now before the court. Both men had good war records, continued Sergeant Farrell. Bidois was a. married man with two children. Robertson had been employed by the company before the war and since his return, and was regarded as a trusted employee. Plea For Leniency Mr C. A. Suckling, who appeared for both men, asked for leniency. He asked the Bench to consider ordering the suppression of the names of both men, suggesting that the Bench might see fit to impose a small fine in each case as the men were first offenders. Bidois was a young man and had not taken the butter for the purpose of selling it, but merely for consumption by himself and his friends. On one occasion they were going deer-stalking and did not have enough butter for their requirements.

Both men had not long been discharged from the Army, added Mr Suckling. In the Army there was a certain amount of slackness and wastefulness about rations at times. Perhaps these men did not realise the serious consequences of their actions.

Bidois had been awarded the Military Medal for gallantry at Casino, which showed' that he had served his country well and was not an enemy of society as were some men who came before the Court on charges of theft. Bidois had been in custody over the weekend, and this had served to bring home to him the seriousness of the offence. He had also lost his job.

Robertson had taken butter on one occasion only, and he took it for someone else and not for his own profit. Robertson had a good Army record, having served for six years. He had already suffered a penalty as a result of losing his job. Both men had seen slackness in dealing with rations in the Army, and it was understandable that it might take them some time to settle down. That however, did not justify acts of dishonesty. Effect of Publicity The Bench said they were reluctant to make an order for the suppression of the names of accused where the police considered that publicity would be a deterrent to others.

In answer to the Bench Sergeant Farrell said that people at Edgecumbe were now well aware that steps had ben taken to put an end to the theft of butter from the factory. It was hoped that the publicity resulting from the prosecution of these men would have the desired effect.

Mr Suckling repeated his request that the Bench consider suppressing the names of accused. Both were young men. He drew attention to the fact that although the Stipendiary Magistrate had declined to suppress the name of a man charged with theft at the last regular sitting of the Court the facts were somewhat different, as the man involved was older and the magistrate had commented that he had been in a position of trust.

The Justices adjourned the Court to consider the application. No Suppression of Names On resuming, the Bench gave their decision as follows: “We feel that in this case it would not be a good thing to suppress your names. It is generally known in the district who you are; but apart from that we consider we cannot suppress your names. “We realise that you are young men and have had war service and have conducted yourselves well. However, the practices that were usual in the Army do not obtain in civil life. You now have to abide by the law.” Both men were convicted and discharged.