COURT NEWS.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 November 1928, Page 6

COURT NEWS.

THEFTS BY YOUNG .MEN

(By Telegraph—Press Association)

NEW PLY-MOUTH, Nov. 7

The theft of two sums of £5 and one of Cl2 was admitted by an accountant. aged 20, in the Police Court, lie was admitted to two years’ probation. The Magistrate suppressed bis name in view of bis youth and previous goal character. He had balanced his books by means of false vouchers, using the money to pay removal expenses from Australia, and for an accountancy course and books to continue his study. He was saving up to return the money and had already repaid portion. Another youth was given two years’ probation for tbe theft- of an overcoat, and £3.-at Gisborne. His name also was suppressed by It. AY. Tate, S.M.

DAYLIGHT ROBBERY. WELLINGTON. Nov. 7

.John Mi!( Kinder, alias John White, labourer. 28. to-day pleaded not guilty to a charge of daylight robbery. The allegation was Unit he ransacked the house of Ivy Marie McArthur, and stole jewellery, a watch and milk tokens, of a total value of £-37.

The police gave evidence as to the arrest and search of accused. when a. ring was found in an overcoat pocket. It was also stated a small piece of glass Was ta.kon from the front door with a fingerprint on it. which the expert has no doit.ht corresponds exactly with the print of accused's forefinger.

Accused was committed for trial

AYEBSTER ACQUITTED OF THEFT CHARGE. AUCKLAND, Nov. 7. A verdict of not guilty was returned hv the jury at the trial of Frederick William Webster, charged with the theft of £b!9B from the Whangarei Cooperative Building Society, of which he was Secretary. Mr Justice Blair, summing up. said it was necessary for the Crown to show that accused had received the money; that he appropriated it. and that the appropriation was fraudulent. As far as the Crown case was concerned there were some elements of doubt as to the precise sum that could he shown to have been received by accused at certain stages. The hooks did not show (lie actual amount received. There had been very slipshod methods of carrying on the Society’s business, and so it was very difficult for the jury to say what amounts had been received. The confusion that had arisen was not of accused’s making. When the auditor. Rust, was asked why lie had himself purchased a ledger and journal, his answer was-: “Because it pleased me to do so.” Rust had not been so frank either with the directors or with the Court, as one would expect. He apparently connived at the method adopted hv accused, of failing t- c hank payments and receipts. He had put down the balance in a way that amounted to blinding the directors to the position, and he allowed the hooks to he prepared in a way that would make it impossi le for anybody to chock receipts with bankings. Tlie jury’s verdict of acquittal was. returned after an absence of four hours.