BONDS SECURED

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1932, Page 12

BONDS SECURED

TO START BUSINESS

THEFT CHARGES FOLLOW

An arrangement to finance butchers' shops at Petbne and Eastbourne by obtaining bonds from prospective employees led to the appearance of Keith Elford Craig and George Sim Mouat before Mr. B. Page, SM., on joint charges of stealing two sums of £20. Craig was also charged with a third offence of stealing £20. Both accused pleaded guilty. < , Detective-Sergeant Tricklebank said that in September last the two accused made arrangements to start a butchery business at Petone. Craig, who was the prime mover, tried to get Mouat to work for him and provide a bond of £20, but Mouat could not advance the money, so' Craig took him on without it. They then decided to advertise - for an assistant who would advance a bond of £20. A man named Olsen1 got in touch with them, and Craig pointed out to him: two shops at Petone, and said they were his. In this way .he secured £20. The two accused earned on,- and further sums of £20 were obtained from two other men. Mr. Tricklebank said the.accused started shops at Eastbourne and Petone, but they only lasted about a week. Craig, ho said,'took all the money collected- at the- shops, and the three men who had advanced the bonds got nothing. . Counsel for Craig said that his client had no criminal intent-when he obtained the bond money, and had fully intended to pay it back. The accused, had hit on this scheme for raising money and starting the business, and the offence had only arisen when he failed to pay it back. Counsel said that the accused was a married _man. with four children, and asked the Magistrate not to send him to gaol. The Probation Officer, Mr. T. P. Mills, said he was favourably inclined towards Mouat, but not towards Craig, who had a previous conviction against him. Mr. Page said that Craig had two previous convictions for false pretences and theft, and would be . sentenced to six months imprisonment. Mouat, who had not previously been in trouble, and was not the prime mover in the offences, would be admitted to probation for a period of two years and ordered to refund £40 at a' rate to be fixed by the Probation Officer