MISSING BOOTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1059, 23 February 1911, Page 4

MISSING BOOTS.

ALLEGED THEFT 1 FROM THE .. MAMARL (Bj Tclesraph.—Press . Association.] . 'Auckland, February 22. ; A young man named Walter Armstrong , pleaded not guilty before Mr.: . Justice Cooper to a charge of having ,6tolen a pair of boots from the steamer; Jlamari at the Railway Wharf, Auckland, on January 23, and also to a charge of having received the stolen boots. .The Hon. J. A. Tole conducted the. prosecution, and Mr. R. A. Singer defended the'prisoner. Mr. Tole said the case was an import- . ant one, for tho reason that the Shaw, ; Savill and Albion Company had.'in the last year or so lost about >£1000.' worth of goods from their'steamers by . pilfering. -' ' ' i ■' : \ Albert St.' ClairWhite, a stevedoro, .. said he saw the prisoner coming ashore... with something bulging his clothes. The ~ prisoner told him lie had not got' anything, but.he found cne boot inside the -. inan s shirt, and another inside, his singlet.' ■ .... Edward Shelley Upton, third officer of/,;, thu Mamari, stated that he was; unable , to find the case from which the boots had ■ been taken, or any broached packages till the ship reached Wellington,, when - the,,, case ,was pointed cut to him. It should : have been landed at ; Auckland, .but. it was among the cargo,, lying - with the marks down, and' looked a* u it had been broken open and badly nailed down again. A good many pairs of boota similar to those taken 1 from, the prisoner were missing. ' * „ . t The evidence of Sergeant •• Lamgan, taken on commission, was read. After being arrested the prisoner had, ho saifl, . stated that he had bought : the boots Irani a' man on the wharf for Bs. He had made a written statement to the witness, ~ alleging the purchase,- but declined to. , Sign it. '. ■' • , . Mr. Singer called no; but_urg- , . ed the jurv to remember that definite proof of gu'ilt alone would justify/a conviction, and pointed out: the reasonableness of the story that the prisoner had bought tho boots from another man. . His Honour remarked to the jury that: : the possession of stolen goods not satis- •. factorily explained -was strong presumptive evidence of gnilt. The jur.v retired for an hour; and returned with a verdict of guilty upon the charge of receiving, but recommended him to lenient treatment on account;of bisprevious good character. The prisoner, will be sentenced to-morrow.