TWO CHARGES OF THEFT

Chronicle (Levin), 9 December 1946, Page 4

TWO CHARGES OF THEFT

SHANNON RLACKSMITH FINED CASE IN LEVIN COURT A dispute concerning a snig chain arose during the hearing in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, on Friday, of a case in which Arthur William Robinson, blacksmith, of Shannon, was charged with the theft of the chain valued at £6, the property of Raymond Robert Lind. ' After hearing the evidence of bot-h parties, the magistrate, Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., entered a conviction against Robinson, stating that he could not accept the story put forward by him. There was, he said, no question as to whom the chain belonged. Defendant was convicted and discharged, and an order made for the restitution of the chain and the payment by the defendant of £3 16s to the person to whom he had subsequently sold the chain. On a second charge of stealing a bieycle valued at £8, the property of Edward Beech, he was convicted and placed on probation for a period of 18 months. Appearing for the defendant, Mr. A. M. Ongley entered a plea of guilty to the theft of the bicycle, but one of not guilty 'to the theft of the chain. . In evidence, Raymond Robert Lind said he had originally bought the chain from the Southern Cross Consuuction Company. The chain had been welded in one place before he received it. He had later asked Robinson, who was then employed by him to make an addition of a hook and jamb link. This had been done with reinforced steel, as pure steel or iron was unobtainable at fhe time. He had used the chain in large constructional works and further recognised the chain by a worn link, which had resulted when the chain had been knotted before the additions were made to it. When he discovered it was missing, he asked Robinson if he had seen it, but he had disclaimed knowledge of its whereabouts. He had then reported his loss to the police. Constable B. Watson, of Shannon, said that when he interviewed Robinson the latter had denied

knowledge of the chain. When questioned as to where he had obtained a chain he had sold to Abraham and Williams, Ltd., of Levin, defendant had stated that he had l'ound it while cleaning up scrap metal at the rear of a garage vacated by a Mr. Harrison. The premises behind the garage had previQusly been a blacksmith's shop, and Mr. Harrison had told him he could have any aluminium or scrap metal found there if he cleaned the premises for him. The chain he had found there was in two pieces, and he had later joined them and made the additions of a snodder and hook, thus making it into a snig chain. Thomas^JSdwaEd. Harrison, taxi driver, of Shannon, said he had given defendant permission to clear up the premises at the rear of the garage and keep any scrap metal or aluminium he found there. This would not have included a chain, he added, in answer to a question by Sergeant Grainger. Sergeant Grainger: You owned a snig chain? — Yes, but different from this one. My chain was lost long before this one. This chain is definitely not mine. T would not have given defendant permission to uake a chain in any case. - Mr. Ongley: When Constable Watson came to see you, was Mr. Lind with him? — Only on the occasion when he brought the chain. As soon as I saw it lifted I knew it wasn't mine. One man could not have lifted mine. In evidence, defendant said he had taken the chain from Mr. Harrison's garage to Mr. Lind's and had made the alterations there. Mr, Ongley: Did you also repair a chain for Mr. Lind? — I did quite' a lot of chains for him, but none as heavy as this one. Defendant added that he could identify the chain as his by the eye bolt, which had a split in it, and the other addition, which he had made out of reinforced steel. He had also repaired one of the links with good steel. Another link was nearly cut through.

Mr. Ongley: Did you have an opportunity, of seeing this chain before today? — No. Sergeant Grainger: Why did you make the additions to the chain with reinforced steel?— There was no iron available. Sergeant Grainger: Yet you found ordinary iron to mend the other link. — Yes I managed to find a little. Sergeant Grainger: Mr. Lind is a contractor and you know he often uses heavy chains? — The chain I repaired for him was a light one. Sergeant Grainger: Did Mr. Harr.yjon .give you pernfission to take anything else besides the aluminium and scrap from his premises? — No. After hearing. the evidence, the magistrate stated that he was convinced Mr. Lind was the owner of the chain and defendant must be convicted for its theft.

Sergeant Grainger said the bicycle was stolen from the vicinity of the power house in Shannon by a youth who hacf already been before fhe children's court and charged with the offence. It had been found abandoned by the defendant, who had taken it and failed to report his find to the polic67 -or insert any advertisement in the papers. He had also sold the lamp and dynamo. Appearing for defendant, Mr. Ongley entered a plea of guflty, but held that defendant was .only guilty of a technical offence. It was not, he said, a straight out case of theft. The bicycle, when , found by defendant, had been exposed to the weather for some time, and the forks were broken. He had taken it home and later given the lamp and dynamo to a relative. He understood that it was this lamp

that had led to the charge against defendant. When entering a conviction, Mr. Goulding made an order for the return of the bicycle and making good the damage done to it.