PROWLER SCARES GIRL

Hokitika Guardian, 17 April 1931, Page 5

PROWLER SCARES GIRL

EARLY MORNING EPISODE. WELLINGTON, April 14. A wake lied at 3 a.m. yesterday by a friend who said that (sometliie iwas prowling round the house, a girl who had been asleep in a front room at a house in Willis Street saw a hand begin to raise th e window blind. She gave the alarm immediately and the prowler was chased unsuccessfully by a boarder. When the latter returned he saw on the pathway leading to the back door a man. whom be caught and handed over to the police. As a sequel, Neang See Yeung, a laundryman, aged 28 (Mr Cresswell), was charged in the Police Court yesterday with being found on the * premises without lawful excuse. He was convicted by the magistrate, Mr AY. H. AVoodward. S.AL, and fined £5. Aliss Maisie AA’eldon, of 214 AVillis Street, said that afc 3.5 a.m. yesterday morning she was woken up by a girl friend who said there was someone creeping round the house. Th e light was on, with the window facing the street slightly open, and she saw a blind starting to pull up the blind. Siie saw tio face, but **aw eyes which looked Chinese. She acfoitliied with fright, whereupon the man crept off the veranda and went out the gate. A man who hoarded in the .house subsequently caught’him, she said. George Freeman, the boarder, said he had chased after the man in the street but lie turned a corner and witness lost sight of him. Witness came back to the house and s»w accused in a right-of-way leading to the back door. AYitneSs ran through the passage to the front and caught him inside the gate. Later he was handed over to a constable.

Accused, giving evidence, said that he had been to the bouse of a Chinese in AVillis Street, where he had be e n unable to raise anyone, and was on his way home along AVillis Street when seized by. a man who .came out as lie was passing a gate. It was not inside the section, he said.' 'Witness denied having run away or having been in the right-of-way.. The magistrate) before .imposing the fine, said he could not disbelieve the evidence that accused had been caught

in the right-of-way. It seemed extraordinary that h e should have returned after being chased 200 yards down the road. Accused had to be convicted, said the magistrate, although he proposed to assume that accused might not have been the man who looked in at the window.