CHARGES OF THEFT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4334, 26 October 1921, Page 4

CHARGES OF THEFT.

POLICE V. BEASLEY. At, the last sitting of the Court, before Mr J. H. Salmon, SM, a Native named Beasley was charged with stealing an amount of clothing and cooking utensils belonging; to a native named Muriwai and valued at £2O. Sergt. O’Grady, outlining the case, said Beasley had taken charge of the stolen articles, which were later brought to a house in Paeroa, from whence they were further removed.

Beasley had stated that he had. taken these articles for money alleged to have been owing to him. Thomas Muriwai, labourer, said he was employed in the bush on the stopbank at Netherton with a man named Davis. He (witness) went to Auckland last December and. left certain articles in his whare. The articles, which included a blanket, an overcoat, a mattress, a safety razor, and cooking utensils, were Shut in the house. He had wired to Beasley for some money, which he had not received. He had written to Davis asking tliat individual to obtain his effects. When he got back none of the articles were there. He had given Beasley no authority to take the articles. Accused had asked him' to get things fixed out of court. An overcoat and blankets produced were recognised by Muriwai as being his.

In reply to Mr Clendon accused denied having retained any money due to Mrs Beasley. The door of the whare was unlocked. He took £3l to Auckland with him, and spent it all. Re-examined by Sergt, O’Grady, witness said that all the goods he received were in his name. If he had ceived all his money from Beasley and Davis he could have paid .all his debts.

To Mr Clendon, witness said that Beasley had given him an order to get a mattress. Replying to the Magistrate, witness said he was entitled to over £6 per week. ROmati Pikare, whp was living at Paeroa, said she knew the accused and Muriwai. She had asked Beasley to give up the goods, but had been refused. John Riley, constable, stationed at Thames, said that he had secured the coat and had subsequently .received the two blankets belonging to Muriwai. He saw a mattress as accused’s but did' not know it was the mattress left at Mrs Campbell's. Accused had denied taking any blankets other than the two produced in court.

Witness said to Mr Clendpn that accused had claimed the goods, but witness had explained to accused that that was riot legal. Mrs Wilkinson said she resided in Wharf Street, Paeroa. She knew Torn Davis, who had been staying at her place. He brought some clothing to her place. ' After he left. .there the articles were still in his room, which

was afterwards occupied by several, including Beasley. When Beasley left the place he took some of Muriwai’s property from the room. She saw him take two mattresses, four pillowcases, and blankets. She did not prevent him from taking the articles

away as she did not understand who owned them.

Mrs Muriwai said that last December she was in Auckland, where her husband joined her. When she arrived back her furniture was missing. She had recovered a box, but there was very little in the box, which was tied with a rope. Thomas Davis said he remembered that Beasley and he were contracting last year. Tom Muriwai was working with him.' There was no arrangement regarding weekly wages. Mur.iwai did not write to witness while in Auckland, but wrote to witness from Opotiki. At Muriwai’s request he got the things from the whare. Witness did not' wish to be mixed up in the case. To Mr Clendbn, witness said that Beaseley,. Muriwai and he were partners. They ceased work about March last. According to Maori custom all the goods were brought to Paeroa in small lots. Sergt, O’Grady: Is it the Maori custom to take Muriwai’s effects away :o Thames, in the bush ? ’ Witness : I don’t know anything of the Maori custom in that respect, but the goods were taken. John McClinchy, police constable, stationed al Paeroa, read a statement made by Davis. Mr Clendon submitted that. there was no evidence of crime. The three people were natives. In his mind they were working in partnership, and it was quite apparent that Muriwai was wprking in conceit with the other two. When the Work ceased and Muriwai did not return, the things were taken to Paejoa. Some of them were afterwards openly taken away from Paeroa. This was a civil wrong—he was not justified in taking them away, but he queried whether there was evidence of theft. Sergt. O’Gr.ady said that one man had no right to take another man’s property, even if a few pounds were owing. The gcods were taken away and converted to accused’s own use. Robert Beasley said that he was working on contract with Davis and Muriwai. He had advanced money to Muriwai at different times. Muriwai had received more money than witness. In December Muriwai received £2l and witness £l5. The mattress was bought in the film’s name. Muriw.ai had promised to bq. back in January. Cross-examined by Sergt. O’Grady, witness said that Muriwai had -not signed an agreement for contract. To Mr Clendon, witness said he had not worn Muriwai’s coat, and wouil swear that the rest of the things, except those recovered, had not been in his possession, and he knew nothing; of! them. Mrs Beasley said she had been living with her husband while he had the job at Netherton. Muriwai, Davis,

and her husband were bn the job. She was in Paeroa when the goods were brought up from Netherton. Her husband took away the blankets and their own mattress. She saw Murir wai in Auckland about February. She had £3 from Muriwai, and told him that Beasley wished him to go back to work. Muriwai said he was in a hurry, and moved on.

Questioned by Sergt O’Grady, witness said that her husband had worn the coat in question.

The Magistrate said that he had no doubt about it. The defendant had admitted taking the goods under colour of right. It, might have’been that Beasley took the things for the purpose of looking after them, but by wearing the coat it was converting ic to his own use. The accused did no: have any colour of right. If Muriwai did owe the man money, it was no excuse, but it, was more likely that Beasley owed the money. The articles recovered wpuld be returned to Muriwai. He • entered a conviction and fined accused £lO, which amount would be paid to Muriwai for damage. One month was allowed for payment.