A PRACTICAL JOKE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2496, 21 October 1922, Page 3

A PRACTICAL JOKE.

MOTOR, CAE DAMAGED AND RUN IN. MAGISTRATE’S WARNING. AI the local S.M. Court yesterday before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., the police charged Denis and John Afc- < Cauley and Wilfred Frank McDonald with alleged damage to a motor car, (he property of Mr F. S. Easton, to (lie extent of £ll 9s 2d. The defendants who were represented by Mr’Ongley, pleaded not guilty. Constable Owen, in outlining the case for the prosecution, stated that Mr Easton drove his ear into Foxton at 5.30 p.m. on the evening of September 19th., and left it outside Whyte’s Hotel. On leaving the hotel at about 11 p.m. the car was missing. It was subsequently found the same night in the court house yard, damaged, and had to be pushed to the garage for repairs. The three defendants were alleged to have been seen pushing the ear a 1 long Main Street prior to its being missed. Frederick Spencer Easton, the owner of the car, said he motored >, into Foxton on tlie evening- in question And left the ear outside Whyte’s Hotel. Ou proceeding to get the ear a few minutes after 11 o’clock, it was missing. Searched for jt in company with Messrs Kirkland, Burr and Bryant. The car was located in the Court House yard. He could not start the car as the electrical apparatus had been damaged. The account for repairs was £ll 9s 2d. Did not authorise any one to remove the car. To Mr Ongley: Other than the switch no damage was done to the body of the car. Saw car shortly after 10 o’clock and the lights were then burning and it was where it had been dono accidentally. Similar damage had not been previously done to the car. Walter Kirklahd, licensee of Whyte’s Hotel, corroborated the previous evidence. Burr found the ear and it was pushed to the garage. To Mr Ongley: Saw the car at 10.10 p.m. Some men were discovered ou the hotel premises after the car had been recovered. John V. Burr said lie was in Whyte’s Hotel with Messrs Easton and Bryant on the night in question and outlined what had taken place up to the finding of the car. He knew the three defendants. Saw McDonald, in company with Mr Kirkland and McDonald wanted the thing settled and guaranteed everything would be squared. To Mr Ongley: Kirkland was present at the interview with McDonald . - —the latter was a nephew of Kirkland’s. The interview took place in the hotel two days after the car was taken. The news of the loss of the ear was common property. McDonald said he was one of the I fools who interferred with the car, the others had egged him on. He said the thing would be squared up. McDonald did not say thak anyone damaged the .car. Did not know whether an offer had been made-to square up. David Williams said on returning from the dredge on the night in question, lie saw the ear outside Whyte’s Hotel. There were several people round the ear and he saw them pushing the ear away. Thought he recognised McDonald and the two McCauleys. One had been at the steering wheel and jumped out of the car. The time was about an hour after the picture show had closed. To Mr Ongley: Witness was by Healey’s chemist shop when he saw • them pushing the car and was about 100 yards distant. It was twilight. There was no moon and no street lights. Couldn’t see how many were-round the car. There might have been shadows. The S.M. : How could there he shadows if there was no light? Continuing, witness said he heard the yarn about, the car the next day- and that' McCauleys and McDonald were implicated. He could not swear to tlie identity of the accused on the night.' There might have been three or four others there. Wjlien he was told about the affair the next day the accuseds’ names were mentioned and he said “By. Jove! they might have been there, too.” There was no lights on the. car when it was being pushed. Did not pass the ear but proceeded home via Whyte Street and stepped out of the way. Did not meet any one on his wayhome. J. T. Follas, licensee of the Post Office Hotel, gave evidence to the effect that McDonald accompanied him to his hotel after a meeting on the night in question, a little before 10 o'clock and left the hotel shortly after that time. McCauleys were not in McDonald’s company-. Mr Ongiey said the whole thing appeared to have been a practical , joke with no intention to damage the ear. There was no evidence to connect the McCauleys with the affair and he asked that the charges' against them be dismissed. He then called F. McDonald, carrier, who stated that he accompanied Mr Follas to his hotel on the night in • question. He did not notice the car in front of Whyte’s Hotel nor did he see the McCauleys that night. The following morning he was in Whyte’s Hotel when the car incident, was discussed. The matter was then town talk. He said if there is anything on I’m bound to be pulled into it and added supposed that those who took part in the joke would pay fdr it. He did not hold himself responsible for any . payment and

ho was not in it. As he passed along the road that night he noticed two or three, persons under Healey’s verandah. To Constable Owen: Did not undertake to collect (he amount to pay for the damage or tell Burr he would. Did not see the other two defendants Hat night. The S.M. said he would give McDonald the benefit of the doubt. If lie was in it- there were certainly others and he would not make McDonald the scapegoat. The law now provided imprisonment for this kind of practical joking and to put a stop to joy riding in other people’s cars. He would look upon llie matter as a practical joke provided the damage was paid. If the amount of damage was not paid further investigations would have to he made by the police. The charges against the accused would be dismissed without prejudice to the case being reopened.