STEALING WATER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1667, 6 February 1906, Page 2

STEALING WATER.

ROBBING A CITY COUNCIL.

.(Per Press Association.) Auckland, luelr eight. A most unusual chargo was heard beforo Mr Dyer, S.M , when Alexander G. Carrie, oDgijoer o£ R. Salmon, Ltd., (in liquidation), a butchering firm, was charged with that he did steal wamr, .She property of the City Council, valued at £IOO or thereabouts, between the months of November, 1904, aud September, 1905. The City Couooil was represented by Mr Cotter, and defendant by Mr Skelton. Tbo City Sclicitor sßid tbo circumstances woro extraordinary. Defendant had nothing to ga'n personally by his aciioD, but ho had made allegations in a written statement casting the blame on hia employers. Unfortunately for de fendant, there was not the slightest cor roboration available of these statements, which were absolutely denied by his employers. The offence was a serious one and not lightly to be passed over, and even if it had been under directions it was an act that no engineer as a professional man should have dono in any oironmI stances. James Carlaw, waterworks engineer to tbo City Counoil, deposed that he interviewed defendant. He inquired as to the reason of him (defendant) taking out the water meters during certain periods of the year. The reply was that it bad been under instructions from Mr B. Salmon. William B. Fordyce, late secretary, and at present liquidator cf R. Salmon-and Co., stated that he had occasion to speak to defendant as to the cost of making ice, and the quantity of water likely to- be used. He informed witness that the ice would oost very much more than on previous seasons, unless they were to adopt similar tactios with regard to the water. Witness asked him what he meant, -and ho explained that by Mr Salmon’s instructions the meter had been removed from time to time. Witness then laid the matter before his fellow-liquidators, and they considered their duty to communicate with the municipal authorities, Salmon Btated that he had heard the statement of defendant, and he asserted that there wsb no truth in it Mr Skelton asked that the case be dealt with summarily. This would mean thal the amount would have to be reduced t( £2O. To this Mr Cotter agreed. v Mr Skelton submitted while admitting the offence, that the real ones who profitec were the company. There had, moreover been absolutely no concealment intbi matter. Under such circumstances, hi thought his Worship would be justified ii admitting defendant to probation. His Worship expressed the opinion tba probation was a'ways admisoable when i man acted on the impulse of the moment but where a man continuously robbed th City Council of water for months am months, then it was a matter of pure de liberation. He would inflict a fine o £ls, with costs, £2 2s.