A BARREL OF BUTTER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 242, 7 July 1921, Page 9

A BARREL OF BUTTER

WAS IT STOLEN? ’ CHARGE AGAINST WATERSIDE WORKER In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Messrs. W. Heunah and H. Seaton, Justices of the Peace, Hendry Mearns was charged that on April 2. and on divers dates between April 2 and 21, he stole a quantity of butter, valued at -C5, the property of some person or persons unknown. There was an alternative charge of receiving the butter from some person unknown. Sub-Inspector Willis prosecuted, and Mr. A. B, iSievwright appeared for the accused. Myrtle Mearns stated in evidence that the accused was her father, with whom she resided in a house in Willis’ Street. Misa M'Morran also resided with them. In April last Miss M'Morran went into hospital, and waa there for about a month, during which period witness kepf house for her father. He occasionally brought butter home, and had instructed her to say nothing about it to anyone. A barrel partly filled with butter was produced in court, but the witness could not say if the accused had placed the butter in it. Her father had told her that he waa getting a quantity of butter, and intended salting it down, because of the probable increase in price. Accused Worked on Steamers. Hugh M'Leod, time-keeper in the employ of the Shaw, Savill and Albion Co., said that accused had been employed by his company, on tho Roranga (April 11 to 19). and tho Waimana (April 26 to 29). The accused was also employed-on the Taihui on April 20 to 23, in No. 1 hatch. Butter was shipped by the Rarnnga and Waimana. To Mr. blevwright: He had no knowledge of any butter being pilfered from either of tho boats. He subsequently found out that there were shortages on the vessels. Sergeant Starck said he interviewed the accused on June 25 at his house. Copstable O’Dowd was with him. Edith M'Morran, with whom the accused had been living, complained of tho accused assaulting her. She further accused Mearns of stealing butter from the wharf. Witness found a barrel of butter in the scullery. Statements were made by the accused and tho woman. ■ The latter stated that each day after she came out of hospital Mearns brought home parcels of butter wrapped in mutton cloth and concealed inside his clothes. Mearns told her that he had' bought i,t from the boats. Ha also made ar statement to the effect that he had bought butter from different members of the crews of the vessels on which he had been working. Sergeant Starck added that when he first saw the barrel it contained about 501 b. of butter, of a type not usually procurable in the shops. \ Constable O'Dowd gave corroborative evidence. ■ ' Witness for the Defence. Edith M'Morran, who lived' with the accused at 263 Willis Street, said that on June 25 she arrived home at 6 p.m., after seeing a doctor. She had had some drink, and accused was very much under the influence of liquor. So much so that he ordered her out of the house. She remembered the police coming to the house, also making a statement to the police, ’but now ’de<fl{alrcd] /iihatl that statement was false. t With respect to the butter, she got a lot of it from a friend who was working on a coastal steamer trading to Wanganui. This friend made his home at her house whenever he was in port. He did not pay board, but he gave her a lot of stores. Cross-examined: She could not remember what was in the statement she made to the police. If the sergeant and constable had stated that she was not under the influence of liquor that evening that would be untrue. The remarks about butter in the statement made by her were approximately correct. The accused brought butter in small parcels in his coat pocket or .inside his shirt,’and he brought butter home about three times a day.- She sent for the. police that evening because the accused ■ was quarrelsome. The man she got the butter from was named ’ Thomas Svensen. She had lent him money, and he owed her for board. The butter was brought from Patoa, where Svensen was employed in the freezing works. Mr. Sievwright said that was all the evidence he had to offer, and he asked whether the Court considered there was a case to answer. The Court thought that a prima facie ease had been made out, and the accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was allowed. in one surety of .£5O.