THEFT CHARGE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 21, 20 October 1942, Page 2

THEFT CHARGE

Sequel To Wool worth Case MANUFACTURER STANDS

TRIAL

A sequel to the Woolworths case was heard lit the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, before Mr. Justice Blair, and a jury of 12, when Sydney Klinberg, managing director of Tiny Tots Clothing Manufacturing Co., was charged xvith on or about June 10, IIMI, at Wellington, stealing 4300 yards of georgette, and 5000 yards of kabe crepe, of a total value of £1179/5/10, goods and chattels of Woolworth (N.Z.), Limited. He was alternatively charged with receiving from Raymond John Watte the same gOods well knowing when he received them that 'they had 'been dishonestly obtained. Mr. W. H. Cunningham conducted the prosecution and Mr. W. J. Stacey, with him Mr. G. C. Kent, appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The evidence of Francis Herbert Giles, manager for Wopltvorths (N.Z.), Ltd., occupied more than three hours, and he was still in the witness box when the case was adjourned till today. The records ot the firm, he said, showed that oir June 10 1941, 9575 yards of material had been sent out from the firm’s bulk store to Tiny Tote Manufacturing Co., and the material had Inter been returned. On the same dav, 4300 yards of georgette and 5000 yards of kabe crepe were dispatched to Tiny Tots Manufacturing Co., and a receipt for this had been received from the wife of accused. It had been suggested that these goods had been returned to Woolworths the day they were delivered, but there was do trace, in the firm s records, of their either having been returned or manufactured. On June 18 there was an invoice from 55. R. Nairn for 4000 yards of dress crepe the price being £032/10/-. On June 18 Woolworths paid to .R. Nairn a cheque for £032/10/-. Witness knew a firm named Estelle, Ltd., of which the proprietor was Harry Klinberg, a brother of accused. The goods bought from Nairn were delivered, to the Estelle Manufacturing Co. by Mr. Nairn or his agent. When the invoice for these goods xvas received, it had to be checked. Seeing that they were not delivered to the firm s warehouse, the goods had to be sighted. A member of Woolwortbs’ staff cheeked the invoice, and fouml that hll<l heen delivered to the Estelle Manufacturing Co., and made up by them, and delivered to Woolwortbs in due course. 55 it.ness understood that ut. this time a number of a”euts were operating on a system ol sales for cnsh with no invoices and no receipts. Some manufacturers had more piecegoods than they required, and operated on a cloudy market. Woolwortbs had never operated on this market. Cross-examined by Mr. Kent, witness said the Tiny Tots Company had lor the past few years been manufacturing exclusively for AVoolworths. ’The charge in the present case involved an amount of about £llOO, computed at the price at that time. , To his Honour, witness said that A ooiworths had lost 9000 yards of material, which it was very dillicult to replace. Continuing under cross-examination, witness said Hint Tasker was a broker who put trnnsnetions through 'V. KNairn. The goods sold by M ntts to Tasker never came back to Vi owwoi ths. Tusker did not know that the goods enme from Woolworlhs. The goods winch Watts sold to Tasker, and which rasker resold to Woolworths, did not go buck to Woolworths’ store, hut went to the Estelle Manufacturing Co. for manufacture.