HOKITIKA NOTES

Grey River Argus, 9 October 1948, Page 2

HOKITIKA NOTES

(Cur Own Correspondent). A fine of £2 with 10s was imposed on Robert oFster, of Harihan, for being found in possession of five bottles of beer outside a dance hall at Kokatahi on August 28, the beer having been found in his car. For driving a car without a warrant of ntness, Cyril A. Harrison was fined 10s witn 10s costs. John W. Banister was fined 30s for unlwaful possession of Inearms, and 10s for firearms without a permit, with £1 costs. Applications granted m the Wm ShSm/p D. J M&h“ ni iS Se in mining township; Arahura X'U-U Co., surrender of special mining pi vilege- A. Cederman, protection cci tificate; D. P. Graham, renewal of town lease.

CAR CONVERSION AND THEFT OF BEER.

At the Magistrates Court at Ho kiti'ka, Mr. R. C. Abernethy, S.M., ie heard yesterday charges agains. Henry J. Freitas, 20, single and Jack E Stuart, 24, married, both employees of N.Z. Railway Road Services, of converting to their own use a N.Z. Railways Road Services motoi miiy valued at £l,OOO and the theft of 13 bottles of ale, the property or F. C. Walker, licensee of the Greyhound Hotel, Arahura. , _ The case was first heard on September 13 by Messrs A. E. Benjamin and J. Murdoch, J’s.P., when the ac ‘ cused pleaded not guilty. On September 20, the case was again rought before the Justices, when a rehearing was granted on the ground that the accused had been unable to obtain legal advice. At the rehearing, both defendants, for whom Mr. M ’ B James appeared, amended their plea to one of guilty, regarding the theft of beer. The police called P C. Walker, who said that on September 11, at 3.45 p.m. h e had in. his garage a crate containing five dozen bottles of Tira beer. He left the hotel at 4.15 p.m. When he arrived back at 5 p.m. his wife told him two young men had removed beer from the garage. Witness counted 13 bottles as missing, and rang the police. He knew Stuart. Mr. James: If you knew Stuart was- one of the persons concerned, would you have informed the police still ? Witness: “I don’t think so. I would have given him a thick ear instead, and got my bottles back. I am concerned about the loss of my beer, not about my personal feelings towards Stuart.” Florence G. Walker stated two young men at 4.45 p.m. had two drinks at the hotel. Later she heard a voice calling to her to come out as someone was stealing beer from the garage. She was just in time to see a red lorry pulling out. She did not actually see the men removing the beer. Mrs. J. McSaveney said that, when coming home on September. 11 a young Maori drew her attention to a red lorry in the garage right of way. The lorry pulled out on to the road facing Hokitika. A young man then appeared from, the garage with two bottles under each arm, and placed them in the cab of the truck. Witness called out to Mrs. Walker. The lorry drove off. Freitas was driving. Witness later overtook the lorry which had stopped. The two men were outside. Witness advised them to return the beer as Mrs. Walker knew of the theft. Freitas said: “Is that a good tip ” He said they would return the beer. Stuart seemed intoxicated. The lorry turned round and headed back to the hotel, but went only a short distance before turning round and coming back to Hokitika.

Senior-Sergeant Mclntyre called Henry John Parsons, relieving bus foreman at Hokitika at the time who stated that on September 10 he told Stuart to come back in the morning at S o’clock and wash-down a freight lorry, signing off at 12 noon. Freitas was hot on duty that weekend. Neither had any authority to be at the garage in the afternoon. Mr. James: ‘.‘Your department has rules which govern the conduct of its employees. These cover such factors as penalties, etc., for breaches. Any mishap is, as a rule, dealt with, either by imposing a fine, suspension or a severe reprimand. Do you. know of any case in your department where Court convictions have been imposed for breaches of the rules ? When an employee is taken on he is given strict instruction as to what can be done and cannot ?”

Witness: ‘‘They are certainly told certain things, but we have not. time to go into specific details. There were seven drivers employed, the manager issuing keys of the garage to each driver. Ignition keys are kept in the truck's. Mr. James: “If Stuart, had not finished his morning duties by noon, could he return in the afternoon ?’■ “Yes, without extra nay.”

Mr. James: “Any driver desiring to use a veheile must first get permission from you ?”—“Yes.” It is not common for drivers to take home vehicles at -lunch hour?— If so, the manager should prevent it. “Can you say that, in your 13 years of experience you have never known a vehicle to be taken from the garage without permission?”—Not to my knowledge. “If the lorry had been returned to the garage without police intervention, but the conversion were known to the manager, what would have happened?”—The matter would have been referred to the department in Wellington and a penalty imposed by it. S. J. Varcoe, manager of the Road Services branch at Hokitika, said that at 5 p.m., he was phoned by Walker, saying a driver “Jack” belonging to the department, has been at Arahura in a Road Services lorry. “I knew that no lorry was in use there on Saturday, so I ’phoned the garage at Harihari, to see if they knew of a driver named ‘Jack,’ and if a lorry was out,” said witness. “They knew of no such driver. I then ’phoned the police and began to in-

form them that a mistake had been made, when they told me the driver was Stuart and the lorry a freight lorry up from south, jirior to repair. I have been employed i’or 16 years in the service and have had no experience of the misuse of vehicles. I ’phoned headquarters about the matter and was told to instruct the police to press a conversion charge.” Constable Millar repeated evidence given previously. Mr James called upon W. J. Freitas, father of one of the accused, who stated that he had been employed with Railway Road Services for seven years. He was in the garage when Stuart entered and drove the truck out. Witness had then been under the impression that the truck was being driven out to the yard. He knew of a case where a driver from the garage had used a truck from the garage for a day, to' cart wood, without first having sought permission. Stuart had been at the Railway Hotel in the afternoon, drinking. Mr James said the matter of the colour of right had to be taken into account, as both defendants were employed, and it was merely a breach of departmental rules, and the departmnt dalt with such braches accordingly. ■ The Magistrate, confirming the decision of the J’s.P., ordered defendants to pay £9 Is lid costs. He said: “The act provides for a penalty for the unlawful conversion of a motorcar, without colour of right. The accused had no lawful authority. It has been suggested by counsel that Government vehicles are taken home for lunch. It may be argued that a man doing so has some colour of right as he wuold be on duty. He may have called at his home, but would still be on duty. I could conceive there not being a prosecution in such a case, but this is a different case. Neither defendant was on duty and neither had any authority to take this vehicle out. If a vehicle is taken out without colour of right; if it is taken out by an official for his private use, a charge of unlawful conversion can be made. If defendants had been on duty, it might have been a different matter. Unfortunately the whole matter appears to have been one of drink. One can sympathise with the two young men, but they cannot escape.”