POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 22440, 10 September 1936, Page 11

POLICE COURT

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) THEFT OF BICYCLES. Eric Alfred Wahrlieh, who was represented by Mr C. J. L. White, pleaded guilty to the theft on March 11 of a bicycle, valued at £2, the property of the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company, and on August 10 of a bicycle, valued at £5 10s, the property of James Sarginson. Chief-detective Young said that on March 11 a bicycle belonging to the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company was stolen from Bond street during the afternoon, and on August 10 another bicycle belonging to Sarginson was stolen from the bicycle rack at the Public Library. Inquiries were made by Detective Brown, who ascertained that the accused had sold to a second-hand dealer a bicycle which was later identified as Sarginson’s. Inquiries from second-hand dealers showed that' he had attempted to sell bicycles to them. The accused said he had bought the bicycle from a man for 12s fid, but the man could not be located. He had sold

the carrier to another dealer, giving another name, though he _ gave his own name when' he sold the bicycle. When searched he was found in possession of a pawn ticket for another cycle which was recovered and found to be the one stolen on March 11. The accused was arrested and charged, and was admitted to bail on his own recognisance. He failed to report regularly and to put in an appearance in court when the case was called a second time. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and he was arrested at Bluff and brought to Dunedin. He was a married man 25 years of age, and had been before the court on five previous occasions for theft. Mr White said that the case had been adjourned to enable the accused to find the man he said he had bought the bicycle from. He couldn’t do that, and realised the matter would have to bo faced sooner or later. He received word from his wife who became ill. He went to Invercargill to see her. Having got there, instead of reporting to the police, he obtained work at the Bluff. If it was his intention to slip away from New Zealand he had ample chance, but did not do so. He had not been in any trouble for two and a-half years. When the bicycles were stolen the accused was desperately up against it financially. The magistrate said that it was unnecessary for the court to emphasise what a serious matter the theft of a bicycle was. In view of the accused’s record and his conduct on bail he deserved no consideration. Wahrlich was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. MAINTENANCE CASE. Herbert Thomas, who was represented by Mr C. J. L, White, was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order in respect of his wife, the arrears under which amounted to £699 Is lid, and His Worship remitted the arrears over £2O, sentencing the accused to six months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as defendant reports weekly to the maintenance officer and so long as he is of good conduct. His Worship said that the defendant was not entitled to consideration in view of the way he had evaded his responsibilities for so long, but his wife would receive something if the accused were on sustenance. CHARGES DISMISSED. Thomas Edward Sagar, who was represented by Mr A, G. Neill, was charged with parking his motor car in such a manner as to cause an obstruction and with failing to remove it when requested to do so by a constable. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Senior-sergeant Packer said that the defendant was a fruit merchant in the Grand Hotel buildings. At 6.35 p.m., on August 19, Constable Baxter had occasion to speak to defendant for parking his car outside Moody’s tobacconist shop, with the result that at least two cars could not get through without crossing over from the safety zone. The constable, in quite a reasonable way, went to" defendant, and instead of the defendant taking this

as a warning to move his car he threatened the constable that he would report him to his superior. This he did by letter. If a motorist did not move his car when asked to do so, he committed an offence under the regulations. Evidence was given by Constable Baxter, and in cross-examination he stated that he did not say “ You can’t stop your car there,” but he had said “ You can’t park your car there.” Mr Neill said that it was a quiet time of the night, and the defendant intended to pick up a case of fruit to deliver. There were already two cars pulled up—one outside a portion of the Grand Hotel and one outside defendant’s own shop. Defendant wanted to get the fruit. The constable came up immediately and told defendant that he could not stop his car there. Apparently there had always been a dispute as to whether a car could pull up in this particular portion of the road. Defendant always protested against these regulations and held that a car could stop to pick up or set down passengers or to lift goods from a shop. When the constable said that ant could not stop the car there defendant said he knew the by-laws and he knew he could stop there. He was away only two minutes, and when he caine back .the constable told him his car was not pulled up as it should have been.

The defendant, in evidence, said the constable gave no order that he did not comply with. The Magistrate said no offence had been disclosed so far as the defendant’s failing to remove his car when requested to do so, but he would amend the former charge to one of defendant stopping his vehicle in such a manner that it was not parallel with the direction of the road, except for the purpose of loading or discharging goods by the rear of the vehicle. . The Magistrate asked why the defendant had taken up the attitude of writing and complaining about a police officer who was only doing his duty. Mr Neill said that it was the question of the regulations that defendant was concerned with. His Worship said he could not look upon it as a serious matter. _ The charge would be dismissed, subject to payment of costs (10s). It would probably be a lesson to Mr Sugar. MOTORIST FINED. Thomas L. Stevens, who drove a car along the Main South road at a speed of 40 miles an hour, was charged with driving in a manner which might have been dangerous to the public,; and was fined £5 and costs.