STOLEN PROPERTY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 110, 7 February 1928, Page 7

STOLEN PROPERTY

TWO MEN IMPRISONED FOR RECEIVING

CITY BURGLARIES MENTIONED

Henry Ralph Bigham, a ship’s steward, aged 23, pleaded guilty in the -Magistrate's Court yesterday to two charges oi receiving various articles of jewellery, valued in all at .£72 10s. from John Charles Cannon, knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. Accused, for whom Mr. A. B. Sievwright appeared, also admitted having received from Thomas James Cannon a gold watch and a gold pencil valued in all at at(s 10s., knowing the same to have been dishonestly obtained. In addition, Higham entered a plea of guilty to a charge of bringing a revolver into the country without a permit. Chief Detective \1 ard explained that the premises of the Remington and Roneo Agency of N.Z., Ltd., in I’eatherston Street, and Edward William Burd, in Willis Street had been broken into recently by a John Charles Cannon, who had stolen goods from the two places valued in all at about .£560. Cannon, who was now in the Terrace Gaol on remand awaiting trial, had taken some of the stolen property down to the ship Kaimai, and left it in a suitcase with Higham, who was a steward on board. When Higham returned from a trip to Westport, Cannon told him that the property was stolen. On subsequent dates he received more of the property which he also knew had been dishonestly obtained. Accused had also received goods valued at £6 10s. from Thomas James Cannon, who was a brother of John Charles Cannon. Thomas James Cannon knew that his brother had stolen the goods, and he took a watch and a pencil tor himself, which he later gave to Higifam. The latter had two previous convictions, but they were for offences committed when he -was a' 1 boy.; Mr, Sievwright asked that his client be granted probation on account of his age and also on account of the fact that he had given the police every assistance to clear up the matter. It was quite true that Higham had two previous convictions, but one was for only stealing a bag of apples when he was but fifteen years of age. Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., stated that under the circumstances it would be impossible to grant probation. The receiver was as bad as the thief, and Higham must have known the circumstances under which the goods had been acquired. On the major charge of receiving accused would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. On the charge of winging a pistol into the country without a permit Higham was convicted and ordered to forfeit the weapon, while on the other charges hs was convicted and discharged. Thomas James Cannon, an engineer’s apprentice, aged 20, also appeared before Sir. J. H- Salmon, S.M., charged witlr stealing a gold watch and pencil, valued at £5 10s., belonging to the Remington and Ronco Agency of N.Z., Ltd., and to stealing a gold watch, valued at JCS 10s., the property.of Edward William Burd. Chief-Detective,Ward stated that when accused discovered that his brother John Charles Cannon had stolen the goods he himself took the articles mentioned from amongst them. When his brother was arrested accused expressed his astonishment and dismay, and later brought a goltl watch dewn to the detective office, stating that he had found it hidden in the house. This watch he had taken from the stolen property himself. Ho had 1 een before the Court on three previous occasions, once for receiving stolen property when be was a youth, and twice for theft. He was last before the Court in 1923.

Mr. A. B. Sievwright (who appeared for Cannon) asked for probation. His client was only young, and the articles he had stolen were not valued at a very large amount. He was apprenticed to an engineering firm, and should he go to gaol it would probably affect his position in life, as he would lose his apprenticeship. In view of his age and the fact that his mother was a widow, counsel suggested that Cannon be given another chance.

Mr. Salmon: It is utterly impossible to talk about probation in this case. The record of this accused is worse than that of the last one and he must receive a lesson. In order that his apprenticeship may not bo interfered with, however, I will not impose a lengthy term of imprisonment. Accused will be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on the first charge, and convicted aid discharged on the other.