DEAR CAULIFLOWERS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2019, 23 August 1919, Page 3

DEAR CAULIFLOWERS.

THEFT FROM CHINESE GARDENS. £lO FINE INFLICTED. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., James Robertson, of Himatangi, was charged by the police with, on • August 7th, stealing cauliflowers to the value of live shillings, the property of Chung Wall. Defendant, who was represented by Mr 11, R. Cooper, elected to lie dealt with summarily, and pleaded not guilty. Constable Woods conducted the case on behalf of the police, and called the following evidence: — Gee Kong, market gardener, Himatangi, stated that for the period from May 19th to August 3rd, thefts had taken place from the gardens at Himatangi on eight different occasions, and the number of cauliflowers stolen during that period totalled 398. In consequence of the losses they had sustained in this connection, they decided to keep watch. On the night of August 7th they wore in hiding, and at about v 9 o’clock saw tAvo men come along on a railway jigger. They slopped opposite the gardens, and one of the men scrambled through the fence into the gardens, and commenced breaking off some cauliflowers and putting them in a sugar-bag. Witness and his mates immediately made towards the man, who started to run away. They gave chase, and caught him just as he got through the fence. He still had the bag in his hand. Witness caught hold of him and was surprised to find that it was “his friend Robertson.” He asked accused why he was stealing the cauliflowers, and Robertson offered (o pay for them. Witness refused to accept payment, and said lie would report the matter to the police. He took possession of the bag of vegetables. He had known accused for eleven or twelve years, and saw him almost daily,

To Air Cooper; It was a moonlight night. As soon as accused’s mate saw witness and his partners lie made off on the jigger. Pong Tin and Yeen Cheung were with witness. After witness look possession of the vegetables Robertson walked away towards his home at Himatangi, which was about two miles distant. Pong Tin, market gardener, Hi-

matangi, gave corroborative evidence as to keeping watch and seeing the men approach on a jigger, and one of them stealing the cauliflowers. When Gee Kong caught hold of the man, witness Ava* about three yards away. He recognised him as Robertson, whom he had known for twelve years, and whom lie saw almost every day.

To Air Cooper: It was a very moonlight night. He didn’t know who the other man on the jigger was. He din’t see a woman there. This concluded the ease for the

prosecution. Mr Cooper said the defence was a complete denial of the charge. Defendant was a man of almost 60 years of age, and had been in the railway service for about 35 years, and was shortly to retire on superannuation. He lived at Himatangi with Air and Mrs Pratt, and evidence would he given that on Ihe night in'question ho went homo from Foxton in company with Air and Airs Pratt, arriving there about a quarter to nine, and did not leave the house again that night. This was the first time the man’s reputation had been in question. He called the accused, James Robertson, a platelayer, residing at Himatangi. He had been just 33 years in the employ-of the Railway Department, and for the past 26 years had been on the Foxton-Himatangi section. On the evening of August 7th he was in Fox ton, in company with Air and Airs Pratt, and they all went home together on the railway jigger, arriving at the house about a quarter to nine. He did not leave the house again that night. He would swear that he was not in the Chinamen’s gardens.

To the police: Ho had lived at Himalangi for nineteen years. He knew ail the Chinamen at the gardens, and they all knew him. They had certainly made a mistake in identification on this occasion. After they left Foxton for their home on the night in question they did not stop until they reached the house.

Ernest Edward Pratt, market gardener, Himatangi, stated that lie and his wife were with Robertson in Foxton on the evening of August 7th. They all went home on the jigger, arriving between a quarter to nine and nine oVloek. They did not stop anywhere on the road. They all had a cup of tea on arrival, and then retired. Kobertson did not leave the house again that night. Kobertson could not have been in the gardens, as he was in the house with witness and his wife at the time.

To the police: They did not have a sugar-bag on the jigger when they left Foxton. He was a partner with Kobertson in some land. Ada Pratt, wife of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. She knew they were home at a quarter to nine, as she had passed the remark’ when she looked at the clock that they were home early. The Magistrate said he was not satisfied with the evidence of the alibi. He did not think the Chinamen who had known Kobertson for eleven or twelve years would mistake someone else for him, even on a dark night. There was no reason for the Chinamen to swear falsely, and their evidence was that when they caught him they immediatelly recognised him, and had spoken to him. On the evidence a conviction jypuld have to he recorded, and he

asked Mr Cooper if he desired to say anything before he inflicted the penalty. Mr Cooper said that he took it the Magistrate would impose a fine, and he asked that in view of accused’s record he would make it as IHit as possible. Ho understood Robertson had never been before the Court before. The police said the present was (lie first time accused had ever been •before the Court. The Magistrate said that, systematic thieving from these gardens had been going on for some time. On tin's occasion, however, he would take into consideration that accused was -an elderly man, and that there was nothing against him previously. For the offence that had been committed accused was liable to imprisonment not exceeding six months or a line not exceeding £2O. As be was not going to order imprisonment, the fine would have to be substantial. Accused would be convicted and fined £lO, with costs. At the request of accused, he was allowed a month in which to pay. Later on Mr Cooper said that he had been instructed by his client to lodge an appeal against the Magistrate’s decision, and asked that the amount of security foy appeal be fixed. , The Magistrate fixed the amount at £25.