THEFTS AT PAEROA.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5098, 9 March 1927, Page 2

THEFTS AT PAEROA.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE'S LAPSE

CONVICTION AND FINE IMPOSED.

At the Police Court at Paeroa yesterday, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M-, William J. McKenna, Public Works employee (Mr C. n’ O’Neill), was charged with the alleged, theft of three pairs of guni-b°ots valued at £4 life from the Public Works Department within the past 12 months. A second charge of the theft of building timber and roof-iron to the value of £lO, the property of W. W. Scott, Paeroa, between the months of December, 1926, and March 4. 1927. was also preferred.

Ti?i tlie first charge accused pleaded not guilty. On the second charge he pleaded guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. On the application of the police the first charge was amended to read two pairs of gum-boots.

William Purdie, storekeeper, Public Works Department, said that the defendant had been in the employ of the Public Works Department. The gumboots (produced) were the property of the department, and had not been sold to defendant. Witness said he had full charge of the stores, and defendant had not purchased the boots from h'm. The boots were sold to employees only when they were of no further use to the department. Gumboots were never sold in their entirety, as the tops were cut off, and often the feet and the remainder sold as leggings. To Mr O’Neill witness said that defendant had purchased two pairs o'f boots from t.he department in November, 1923, which was before witness was transferred to Paeroa. About 50 pairs of boots a year were classed as unfit, and had been up to a few months ago available to employees at 3s a pair. The boots not sold were burned. Boots were never burned without authority from the (head office. The new boots were kept in a lock-up store at the Puke. Defendant was a blacksmith who worked close to the stere. No one had a right to enter the stores, and there was always a man in charge while the stores were open. It was possible that after paying for boots at the store the defendant could go to the dump where the boots were awaiting destruction and select a couple of pairs of boots and take them to the smithy without witness or his assistant seeing them. To the police witness said that there was no likelihood of the boots produced having been thrown put on the dump. The boots were in good condition and were serviceable for a number of years. It was most unlikely that the boots had been condemned, as they were in really good serviceable condition.

Constable McClinchy stated that on March 4' he had searched the premises <f defendant and had ’found the hoots on a shelf in an outhciuse. Defendant when questioned stated that he had bought them from the Public Works Department.

For the defence, Mr O’Neill said that, the information was made by the constable when executing a search warrant for missing timber. Defendant had been blamed for other matters, and it was an assumption on the constable’s part that the boots bearing the Government brand had also been stolen. It would be impossible, on the evidence, for defendant to have stolen the boots, and he could, prove that he had purchased them and had, as a Special favour, been allowed to pick the boots out without them having tlie tops cut off. Purdie had said that it was impossible to have got the boots from the dump, but it was submitted that friendly relations; between employees of the Public Works Department existed, and it was possible that the boots had been placed on the dump for defendant to pick up.

McKenna, the accused, stated that, he had bought two pairs of boots in 1923 from the Public Works. Department. He was aware that the department made it a practice of cutting the tops off the boots before selling them to employees. One pair had been taken from the oil shed and the second pair from tlie rear O'f ,the store. There was a lapse of time between the purchase of the first and second pair, and there had been no official handy to cut the tops off the boots. He particularly wanted long-topped boots because of the Heed-water that surrounded his house at intervals. A pair of short boots had-been obtained for his, son.

To the police defendant said that lie knew of no confederate who, was working in the interests of his fellowworkmen rather than for the department. Scores of boots were thrown out, and the boots produced were fair samples of those destroyed. The boots had been purchased from a man named Hartley, who had since been transferred from Paeroa. It was quite truth to swear that the boots issued had been placed on the dump. He had never 'heard that in spite of careful checking and responsible officers, many pairs of boots, .tools, etc., were stolen each year from the department. To Mr O’Neill accused stated that when one boot was condemned the pair was thrown on the dump, and it was quite possible te secure a fairly good pair on going through .the dump. Clifton Schultz, a blacksmith, employed by the Public Works Department at, the Puke, said that he had sold a pair of boots without tops to defendant.

To, the police witness admitted that the boots produced were in good orderHe did not think it was reasonable t a say that the boots had been''condemned, but he could not prove that they had not been condemned. Mr O’Neill said he did hot wish to review tlie evidence of the theft of boots.

On the theft of timber charge Mr O’Neill submitted that the timber recovered did not amount to the £lO claimed. Much of the timber was cement,-crusted, and was obviously second-hand. There were no excuses to offer. Accused was ashamed of his conduct, and his sense of remorse showed that he regretted his action. There was no occasion to take the timber, and he much regretted having done so. Mr O’Neill stressed the

point that the class o'f theft before the Court was a difficult one to detect, and when detected the police wanted to make an example of the culprit. Defendant lived an exemplary home life, and did not drink ar gamble. His influence in the home had been of the best possible. He was 58 years .of age, and had lived 20 years at Waihi and 14 years at Paeroa. Counsel hoped the Bench would take into consideration the humiliating circumstances in which accused had placed himself and his family. Counsel contended that the thefts did not warrant an example being made of accused, but would ask the Bench, in assessing the punishment, to take into consideration what accused and his family had already suffered. A request was made that t.he Bench should extend tne provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act to accused, and temper justice witli mercy.

In his address tlie magistrate said the Court could not believe that the boots alleged to have been purchased s?me veal's ago could be in the good order they were in to-day. The story Of the accused was incredible, and the Court was not prepared to accept it. He was sorry that he could not extend the provisions of the Act referred to by counsel. The First Offenders Probation Act was never intended to protect such cases, wherein a succession of charges was made. He was prepared to believe that accused was a man of good character and a reputable person until the unfortunate lapses. In view of the facts stated in favour o,f accused by 'his counsel a term of imprisonment would not be ordered. A fine would be imposed, as it' was tne desire of the Bench to show that such thefts could not go on unpunished. On the first charge accused would be convicted and fined £5 and costs. On the second charge a conviction and fine of £lO would be entered, plus the costs o'f prosecution. On both charges the accused would be required to restore the stolen property. In reply to Mr O’Neill the magistrate said that he must refuse, the application for suppression nf the name. It was not a case of a young man who had given way to a sudden temptation, and who had to make Ms way in the world. McKenna was a man "f mature years, who must have known that he was doing wrong, and should have behaved differently’. The application must, therefore, be refused.