OWNERSHIP OF A BRIDLE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4346, 23 November 1921, Page 2

OWNERSHIP OF A BRIDLE

POLICE V. BERTELSEN. The abovementioned case was heard at Paerpa on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S,M. Jakob Bertelsen, Paeroa, was charged with stealing a racing bridle, the property of Norman Neil. Sergt. O’Grady said in March last Mrs Neil, resident of Paeroa, • purchased a racing bridle, which had been left op a stop-bank. Mrs Neil had seep the bridle with accused’s son, who was riding on a horse. The bridle produced accused had said- was bought by him .about 18 month's or two years ago. Mary Neil said that in March last Len Coleman, a horse trainer, was in Paeroa, and witness had purchased a bridle at 255. The bridle produced was recognised as hers, but it had been altered. The bridle had been left on'a stop-bank, and its loss was not noticed till next day, when it could pot be founds From constant watching she had seen the bridle ou Bertelsen's horse, .which his son was riding. She then communicated with the police. Replying to Mr Clendon, who appeared for defendant, witness said she could swear that the bridle produced was hers. Npiman James Neil (13), boy, residing .with his mother, said he remembered his mother purchasing a bridle from Coleman at' the time of the Jas.t Paeroa races. He recognised the bridle produced as the one bought by his mother. His brother had ridden a horse oyer the river, and when he came back he had left the bridle on. the stop-bank. Jack Bertelsen had told witness that his bridle would soon be done.

Replying to .Mr Clendon, witness said ne had seen the bridle twice on Bertelsen’s horse. Edward Neil (19) gave evidence of the purchase of the bridle in questoin, and he, had used the bridle on several occasions prior to it being lost. He also identified the bridle. John Neil, also gave evidence of the purchase and identified the bridle. He had left it on the stopbank,. missing it next morning, when it could not be found. Alfred Fielder, saddler, carrying on business in Paeroa, said the class of bridle, as the one produced,. was made up for racing purposes., It was English leather, apd good quality, and well preserved. It should be worth £2 ss. \ ' Bernard Stansfield, auctioneer, carrying on business in Paeroa, knew accused Bertelsen, who had asked witness if witness had sold a bridle. Witness had looked it up in his, books, but had not sold him a bridle, unless for cash. Raymond Nield, no relationjtp previous witnesses, was in Paerpa, in March last, and the bridle purchased came from. Auckland by boat, witness taking 'it to Mrs Neil’s place. The bridle produced was identified as the one taken to the purchaser. He had never seen Bertelsen with a bridle like it. Constable McClinchy, stationed in Paeroa, received a complaint from Mrs Neil with reference to the theft of the bridle. He had asked Bertelsen o produce a bridle received from Ngawiki. Bertelsen had handed witness the bridle produced. Accused had said lie bought the bridle at the auction mart about 18 months or two years ago. The bridle had been iden- - tified among others 'by every one of the Neils as the one which belonged to Mrs Neil. . . ■

Setgt. O’Grady, sergeant in charge of the district, referring to the evidence of the previous witness, said accused had . told witness he had not received a bridle from Ngawiki. Mr Clendon said the whole question depended on the identification of the bridle, and he submitted that there was no evidence of ownership. This was negatived by the fact that the . bridle was being used about the streets of 1 Paeroa, and that was not; the action pf a guilty man. Sergeant O’Grady said that'there was no other bridle in the.distir.ict like it.. Assuming there was an exception, on the evidence for the prosecution he could not see how Bertelsen could be convicted under the Act. The bridle had been left on the river bank and later been found in possession of Bertelsen, and he could not say Bertelsen was guilty of theft. The information was dismissed.