A FOOLISH ACT.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 February 1922, Page 4

A FOOLISH ACT.

POSTMASTER TAMPERS AVITH UNCLAIMED LETTERS.

At the Invercargill Magistrate’s Court last week, Thomas Witliington was charged with opening a registered letter addressed to one Howard H. Haynes, at Kingston on or about January 4th., 1921, contrary to his duty. He was also charged with fraudulently taking from the letter postage stamps which had already been used, with intent to use them for stamp-collecting purposes. Detective-Sergeant Carroll prosecuted and Air Eustace Russell appeared for accused. George Robert Cooper, chief post- ! master at Invercargill, said the accused j was postmaster at Kingston. If the ‘ accused had opened the letter produced , he opened it contrary' to his duty, and ! without authority. If the letter arI rived at Kingston on January 3rd and ' was unclaimed, ft should have lain there for the period appointed by reguj lation and then been forwarded to the ; Dead Letter Office.

William John Kelly, clerk in the employ ef the Railway Department, Kingston, said most of the postal work there was attended to by him. The letter arrived on the night of January 3rd. witness saw it again next morning. The accused had the letter in his office, am(3 was looking at it. He remarked to witness that ho wondered if Air TTnsworth, stationmaster at Lumsden, bad any German stamps. There were German stamps on the letter. The accused then rang up Air Unsworth and after that told witness he was going to send tho stamps down to Air Tins worth. Accused then took the stamps off the letter, and said lie wondered what, was in the letter. He opened the letter, the con tents of which consisted of a small photograph'. After they had both had a look at it the put iit back in the envelope, and put the date; stamp over the flap. Accused then put the letter in the safe, where it remained till Afay, when witness went on leave. On his return he was asked for a report about the letter. The report he made (produced) was incorrect, as he wished to shield accused, who drafted the report for him. and witness copied it. Tn the report he denied all knowledge of the affair.

To Air Russell: He denied that it wa« about six weeks after the letter was received that the stamps were taken off and the letter opened. AVhen the letter arrived at Kingston, it was treated in the ordinary way as an unclaimed letter). If the areused had wished to be dishonest and had destroyed tlie letter, there was no record that it had been received at Kingston. So far as he knew the accused had not been suspended by the Department and remained in charge till February Bth., 1922. when lie went on holidays.

Detective-Sergeant Carroll said he interviewed the accused at Kingston on January 12th. Inst afte r haring had an interview with the previous witness, Kelly. He denied all knowledge of the opening of the letter and the removal of the stamps. He said the first time the letter came under his notice was in Afay, 1921. when an inspector showed it to him. Later witness brought Kelly in before him, and Kelly made a statement in accordance with the evidence he gave in Court. AVifine,ss also told him that the T/irmsden postmaster’s stamp hook had been secured by the police, but the accused again denied the affair in question. After tea the accused said he had talked the matter over with his wife, and had decided to tell the truth. He said that one day he saw the letter and remembered that the Lumsden postmaster was saving stamps and thought those on the letter would bo a nice addition to his collection. There was no one of the name on the letter at Kingston. He then removed them. He also lifted up the envelope with a pencil and took the photograph halfway out of the envelope.

To Mr Russell: As far as witness could ascertain there has been no person of the name on the envelope in the Kingston district. As the result of witness’s enquiries it appeared to him that the act of the accused was one of foolishness rather than of criminal intent. Witness understood the accused had sixteen or seventeen years’ sendee in the Railway Department and as far as ho knew had previously borne a good character. The accused had nothing to say, and pleaded guilty. He was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence on the first charge, and convicted and ordered to come up for sentence on the second. Bail was allowed in one surety of £IOO and two of £SO.