Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

WHARF ETHICS ANDPILLAGING. APPEAL FOR SEVERITY. AND WHY IT WAS ASKED FOE. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, 5.51.) At the Magistrate's Court on Saturday morning William 'jeliar Johnston was charged with stealing one case of whisky, valued at JC2 155., the property of the Wellington Harbour Board. He pleaded guilty. Mr. T. S. Weston appeared for the Harbour Board, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for the defendant. Mr. Weston said that there had been a good dear of pillaging this year, nnd tho claims sent in in consequence had been hoarier than had been the case last year. He also referred to certain Auckland pillaging charges, and also to recent Wellington thefts, and said that, in view of all tho circumstances, lie had been asked to endeavour to hare this matter dealt with in such a. way that the defendant would not escape with a fine. He went on to state that tho wharf labourers would also like to .soo thieving stamped out, because if one man was dishonest, it threw suspicion on the whole of the men. This form of dishonesty had got to such a stage now that it seemed that a line would not be sufficient to stamp it out. The case of whisky had licen stolon while the Harbour Board officers wre temporarily away from the spot, -ruere could not bo a responsible officer there all the time. Mr. Weston proceeded to ask that, if his Worship could not see his way (o do uiore than impose a fine' on this occasion, ho (the magistrate) would intimate that, in future, ho would deal more severely with offenders.

Mr. H. F. O'Lenry: "I ask that, notwithstanding what is' alleged elsewhere; and notwithstanding what li.ippp.noil on t.ho vhnrt previously, that tin.; rase .bo dealt with on its merits." Tie went on to say that, the appca.rance of Johnston before the Court was due wholly and solely to drink. The defendant had had an unblemished record, and' had never boon before the Court before. The circumstances of the theft were:—lie went to n stack of whisky which was lying on the wharf, picked np a ense, and openly marched away down the street with it. The man had been engaged in wharf work for five years, and had also been in the employment of the Union Company. The theft had not been committed during a timo when - defendant had been doing wharf work, but during a lull in his work, while ho was simply strolling about, and during-which stroll he had sot drunk-

Tho police constable who arrested the defendant gave evidence to the effect that the defendant was sober enough to know that ho was doing wrong. His Worship' observed that, while one was always inclined to give first offenders a chance, the fact remained that defendant was a wharf labourer, a.nd this kind of thing threw suspicion on other wharf workers. Still, that was only one phase of the case. It was certainly not a ease for probation, but he was not prepared to send tho defendant to gaol. Defendant would be convicted and lined X'o in default twenty-one days' imprisonment. Ho would also have to pay witnesses' expenses. Seven days in which to pay were allowed. _ ■ Mr. Weston: "Can your Worship lay down some strict rule for the future?" His Worship replied it was impossible for him to lay down any s'rict rule. OTHER CASES. Ivato Sweeney, who had appeared on tho previous day on charges of drunkenness and breach of a prohibition order, and had been remanded for inquiries to bo made as to whether or not she could, be accommodated at Pakatoa Island, was brought forward again. 'The report was that there was room for her on tho island, and his Worship thereupon ordered her to spend twelve months in the northern retreat. For drunkenness, Mary Johnston, alias Kate M'lntosh, was fined 10s.; John M'Cann was fined 205.; and George Albeit Dixon 10s. William M'l-eod was convicted and discharged of drunkenness, but fined 40s. for breaiing a prohibition order. Henry Peter Webster was convicted of the theft of an overcoat, valued at 355., the property of William Costello. HrJ was fined lbs., in delault fouiteen days'imprisonment.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19110807.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1199, 7 August 1911, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
704

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1199, 7 August 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1199, 7 August 1911, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert