STOLE BEER

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3262, 12 May 1943, Page 5

STOLE BEER

EMPLOYEE OF BREWERY

SOLD CARTON TO FRIEND

PAEROA MAN FINED £2O & COSTS

On two charges of theft, a charge of selling liquor without a licence and on a charge of being in possession of liquor near a dance hall, a former employee of the New Paeroa Brewery, Charles Ernest Thompson, appeared before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., in the Paeroa Court on' Monday.

The four charges were as under: —

(1) That on April 24 at Paeroa he did steal one carton of 12 bottles of Golden Ale valued at 19s 6d, the property of the Simons Proprietary Ltd. (2) That on April 23 at Paeroa he did steal one carton containing 12 bottles of Golden Ale valued at 19s 6d, the property of Simons Proprietary Ltd.

(3) That on April 23 at Paeroa, being an unlicensed person he did sell liquor, to wit, beer.

(4) That on April 24 at Paeroa, while a public dance was being held in the Civic Hall he did have intoxicating liquor in his possession in the vicinity of such hall. Thompson who was represented by Mr B. Clendon of Thames, pleaded, guilty to the last two charges and defended the first two. f Robert Baker, milk roundsman, said he knew accused and on Good Friday morning saw him at his (Baker s) home. He asked him if there was any chance of getting any beer. They then drove round to the brewery and accused brought out a carton of beer and put it in the back of the van and he drove away after paying 15s in silver. He did not get a receipt for the money. He knew defendant was employed at the brewery but he had not purchased beer from him before. He had thought all was in order and thought Thompson had paid the money into the firm. Thompson had stated he would do so next Monday morning.

Drank Bottle of Beer

To Mr Clendon he said there had been no attempt to hide the transaction and Thompson and a friend drank a bottle of the beer. He only got 11 bottles. W. H. Simons, managing director of the brewery, said that Thompson had been with his firm for two or three years. He had told the staff some time ago to cut out the taking of beer. He had given definite instructions that no beer was to be sold after six o’clock. A notice placed under the clock advises the staff that they were not permitted to consume liquor’ during working hours or remove liquor from the premises without authority. Neither the staff nor customers could obtain liquor from the brewery after hours. Thompson knew of this and held a position of trust.

During Easter he had been away in Whangarei and Mr G. Masters had been left in charge. Nobody had permission to remove beer during this period. When beer was taken by the staff after the office closed and before six o’clock it was entered in the day book and paid for on pay-day. In the course of his duties Thompson was sometimes on the premises while nobody else was there. There was a large stock of beer in the brewery and beer could be taken without being noticed. To Mr Clendon Mr Simons said Thompson had been engaged on the chiller for the last six months. Thompson did not have a key. He would not deny that Thompson could enter by the back door without a key. Thompson to his knowledge had not in the past ever secured liquor after hours. The beer was rarely checked as it was being delivered all day long. Cut Rate to Employees He agreed that other employees had taken beer from the brewery and Entered it in the day book. There was a cut rate for employees of 17s or 17s 6d per dozen. Mr G. S: Masters, assistant manager of the brewery, said he had been left in charge over Easter while Mr Simons had been absent. He had not given Thompson authority to remove the liquor. During Easter the secretary of the company had been in Wellington and could not have given authority for the removal of the liquor. He agreed with Mr Clendon that the staff could have taken liquor and booked it up at the office without him knowing. He locked up the premises on Thursday night.

Constable H. E. Hollinshead stated that on Easter Saturday while with Constable Lilley down town he observed a car outside the Regent Theatre and saw a number of young men leave the dance and approach the car. Accused was at the back door of the car taking a bottle of beer out of a carton when he (Constable Hol-

linshead) approached. Thompson said he had got the beer from the brewery at about 8 o’clock that night. Thompson had added that the secretary of the brewery had given him permission at 4.15 p.m. that day to take the liquor from the brewery and he had had no time to, remove the beer earlier. Carton in Empty Section Together with Constable Lilley he then inspected the brewery and as they were leaving they found a carton of beer in a vacant section. The carton was quite dry although it had been raining heavily earlier in the evening-. Thompson denied all knowledge of the carton of 'beer found in the vacant section.

When he questioned Thompson regarding the beer Baker had purchased Thompson readily admitted the sale stating that he intended to notify the office of the sale. When he inspected the day book at the brewery on the following Thursday he could find no entry regarding the sale, added Constable Hollinshead.

In answer to Mr Clendon he stated he did not see Thompson put the liquor in the car which was the property of Thompson’s parents. Constable H. Lilley gave similar evidence to that given by Constable Hollinshead.

Miss Pauline Simons, a clerk in the office of the brewery stated that on the Tuesday after Easter Thompson advised her that he had taken one dozen bottles of beer and she booked it up. He definitely had not told her at that time that he had taken two cartons of beer.

Started Work Early

She admitted going to the brewery one evening with Thompson when Thompson took some beer and it was booked up next Monday morning. She had only gone to the brewery after being pestered to do so by Thompson. Her father had not known about this until this morning.

• Thompson said he had been in a position of trust for the last four months at the brewery. Often he had to start work very early but never had a key, a door being left unlocked for him to get in. When he or any of the staff had wanted beer they had advised the office and it had been booked up. On the Good Friday he had started work between 8 and 9 a.m. and on his way home had seen Baker who had said he paid 15s for the beer. One bottle had been consumed at the brewery and another at the boardinghouse. This was why he had charged only 15s for* the beer. / When he had shut off the freezer that night he had takeh a earton of beer. Outside the brewery he had met a man in plain clothes who asked him what he was doing with the beer. He had later put the beer in his father’s car.

When he had come out of the dance he had gone to the car with a friend intending to carry ’ the beer home where he proposed holding a party. On the Tuesday morning after Easter he advised the girl in the office that he had taken a carton of beer earlier in the week and anothei’ on 'Saturday which the police had caught him with.

He had not thought he was committing an offence when he took the beer as he proposed to s pay for it. lit had done the same in the past. Thompson admitted that although he was a trusted servant of the brewery and knew that beer was being stolen he had done nothing about it. The Magistrate at the conclusion of the case said accused had been foolish and it had cost him his job. The brewery evidently treated their staff well, allowing them to consume beer on the premises and to take it away at a reduced tariff. In his opinion Thompson intended to keep the money he received from Baker or he would have charged the correct price for it. He had no right to charge less than the correct price. Accused was convicted and fined £2O on the charge of selling liquor without a licence with costs 15s. He was convicted and discharged on the other three charges. Rameka Wickliffe was fined £2 for stealing one bottle of beer on or about December 20, valued at Is 7id, the property of the Simons Proprietary Ltd.