Theft Of Bicycle Brings Fine Of £10

Chronicle (Levin), 9 April 1949, Page 4

Theft Of Bicycle Brings Fine Of £10

Pleading gtiilty to the theft of a bicvcle. Leonard Thomas Green was vesterd&y convicted and fined £10 hy Mr. A- M. Goulding, S-M.. when he appeared in the Magistrate's Courf, -Levin. Mr. N- M. Thomson apbbared for accused. On Sunday, February 13, a man named Keith Halvetson had left bicvcie at the rear of the Piiblic Trust Ofiice in Levin, Actihg-Ser-2c,ant V. G. Arnold toM the court,. ^nid on . going to collect it later. found it missing, reporting the matter to the police., It appeared that Green had reasoh'to go to the rear of the building and, on seeing the bicvcle, took it .across the road to the Arcadia Hotel. He had made no enqttirles ahoiit it. ' La+er, continued Acting-Sere^o nt Arnold,- Green had gone to Palmerston North and asked a secondhand de^er there if he bought second-hand bicvc^s. receiving an ■ answer in the ' affirmative. On the morning Of March 16. Green had

gone to Palmerston Nort.h bv bus ond taken the bicvcle to the dpaler. He had asked £8 for it. but the dealer *had bifered £6 10s, telling Green, who had given the name of Carter and said that he had a small farm -at Ashhurst to call back later that day as he Would have to check the nofice fists of stolen bicvc1es before paving the monev. Green had then- reauested

him to nav £5 then and +he ba ance t ' later. The dealer had become sus- , picipus and told the police. The theft "of bicvcles was a com- - mbn type of offence and it w^s a hard one to deteet, added ActingSergeant Arnold. There was little doubt in the ihltial stages that Green had no intenition of steafihg the bicvcle, said Mr. Thomson. At that time .- he considered it had been abandoned and had taken the machine with no intention of retaining it, but he should have gone to the nolice then. in the time between taking tbp bicvcle and .det.eetion the Arcadia Hotel. in which Green Was interested, had been sold. On Cieaning out the bufiding Green bad found the bicycle again and decided to sell it. Mr. Thomson went on to sav that there was not the slight°st reoson Why Green should have end°'3vouned to gain the small sum he woidd have receivpd from the sale of the bicycle. Un to the time of the offence he had Ied a ffiameless life. and was now utterly renentant and could not exblain whv it had hanpened. Having fafied to adont th'e; ' course of going to the police in the"' . earlv staaes. Green had taken ihe . fqolish and amateurish, way of dis-^, posing of the bicvcle. ' • ' • He "thought this Was a " ea se ' " Where the magistrate could order the suopressioh of accused's name, '' concluded Mr. Thomson in ffiafcing an appfication accordinalv. Pnbfication of his name Would have far-! reaching ron^edu ences not onlv on his wife and- family, but on himself , .. ■ It was difficffit to . unde^sta.nd . hiow men in eood circumstanoes apd respectable could lend thems^ivfes. to this tvoe of offence. ipented the ma gistrate in summingup. He- thoueht it was wrong,, -Where men • of ma+ure years were . involved in such off ences, to order ' the suppression of their .names. That was not the purpose of the Act, which was to protect youthful first offenders. The case was one which could only be met by a substantial fine. The magistrate made an order for the return of the bicycle to its owner.