APPLES, PEARS AND WALNUTS!

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2717, 5 April 1924, Page 3

APPLES, PEARS AND WALNUTS!

ORCHARD VISITATION AND POT JOE SURPRISE.

AN OLD-STANDING INVITATION

CHARGES OF THEFT DISMISSED. At the S.M. Court yesterday five local men, Alcssrs Robinson, Hughes (3) and J. Purcell, were each charged by the police with the theft of fruit, to wit, apples, pears and walnuts, from Mr W. E. Riddle’s orchard last Sunday morning. Mr Hollings appeared for all defendants, who pleaded not guilty. In outlining the case for the prosecution, Constable Owen said that for some time Mr Riddle had been annoyed by thefts of fruit from his orchard and of late this practice had become acute. He laid a complaint to the police and in eonsecpience a watch had been kept last Sunday morning with the result that the five defendants had been caught in the orchard in the act of gathering fruit, at about 11 a.m. William E. Riddle, in evidence, stated that on Sunday last he had left his home in the morning and gone to church. When be arrived back Constable Owen had intimated to him that he had made arrests in connection with orchard robbing. The five accused were present and he spoke to them and asked them why they had not. come to him and asked for the fruit instead of taking it while he was away. He said he didn’t mind them going into the orchard and having some fruit, but when he saw the quantity of fruit thought “it was a bit over the odds.” The orchard belonged to witness and the proceeds of it were entirely his. He was caretaker for Mr Robinson but Mr Robinson had given him ten acres of land on which was the orchard, to do as he liked with. He knew all five accused.

To Mr Hollings: Did not dispute the fact that the property he was caretaker fox belonged to Mr Robinson, uncle of one of accused. Mr 0. Robinson was entitled to take any fruit he desired and was entitled to grant permission to anyone else to go on to the property, but he had never taken advantage of that privilege, nor did witness think Mr Robinson would do so after he had given witness the orchard. Had he done so witness would have been notified of the fact, he felt sure. Air Hollings, on behalf of defendants, admitted that they had gone into the orchard and helped themselves to fruit, but challenged the charge that they had committed theft. When accosted by the constables on the property, two accused had said that they had permission from Mr 0. Robinson to be there.

The S.M. pointed out that as defendants’ admitted being on the property and having helped themselves .to the fruit, police evidence as'to catching them would be unnecessary. Constable Ryan briefly outlined what had happened on the Sunday morning. Constable Owen in corroborative evidence stated that all live men were respectable citizens. It would be impossible for them to have been detected from the house. Robinson and one of the Hughes remained in the car most of the time, only going into the orchard for a few minutes. The others of the party had sacks. Robiusou only had two pockets full of walnuts. No attempt was made at concealment. It would have been impossible, in any case, to hide the sacks of fruit. Mi’ Hoiiings argued that the accused men went to the property to get fruit and walnuts but that they had permission to do so from Mr 0. Robinson, it was not a case of theft but an unfortunate mistake. They had some colour of right. They were ail iu a position to buy fruit if necessary. The men did not know the orchard belonged to Mr Riddle. H. Hughes said that Mi’ O. Robinson had granted him permission to go into the orchard and help himself to fruit whenever he wanted to. To Constable Owen: He could not remember when permission had been granted, ft was a long while back. Constable Owen pointed out that it was probably id years since permission was granted. Continuing, witness said that ire had no idea tire orchar d belonged to Mr Riddle. Had he known that, they would certainly not have visited it. He was a friend of Mr O. Robinson’s. The invitation did not include relatives and friends. The S.M.: If Mr Robinson had given you permission, he should be here to endorse it. To Mr- Hoiiings: Mr' Robinson’s permission had not been revoked. The S.M.: It’s absurd to say that you would be allowed to help yourself over* a long period of years. A brother of previous witness stated that in visiting the orchard he did not understand he was com* miling theft as he understood that permission was given from the owner of the property, Did not explain this to the police at the time but his brother told them that they were there with Mr Robinson’s consent.

Henry Hughes, another brother, stated that he was there because he had Mi’ Robinson’s permission otherwise he would not have gone. He mentioned this to Constable Owen. Mi Robinson, in giving him permission, loid him not to take too much fruit. The permission was given years ago. Mi* Robinson was a friend of his and he would not have gone there to rob him.

J. Purcell, farmer, said that he went there to get fruit. He also had permission and he was not there with the idea of stealing. There was no attempt at concealment and the visit , was iu, broad daylight, lie did

not tell Constable Ryan that he had permission to be there. To the S.M.: Permission was given him by Air Robinson two or three years ago. To be precise, Mr Robinson said “go when you like.” N. Robinson, nephew of the owner, so id permission was given to him some years ago but he could not say when. His uncle was unable 1.0 attend Court on account of ill health. To the S.M.: Saw his uncle several days ago.

The S.M.: If' you saw your uncle several days ago, how can you say he is not fit to cdme here to-day? The S.M. to Air Hollings: You have an opportunity to call Air Robinson. I am not satisfied with the permission excuse. No permission has been granted lately. There would have been no need to call any further evidence if Mr Robinson bad been pul in the box. After a consultation Air Hollings intimated that Mi- Robinson could not be called owing to ill health. He contended that it was the duty of the Crown to call him.

The S.AI.: That’s something new I The Crown lias proved its ease. Continuing, the S.M. said that lie •lid not believe the men bad permission. They thought that if they were caught Air Robinson would take no action. They must have known the orchard belonged (o Air Riddle as they were aware of the fact that he had hawked fruit. It was absurd to say that permission granted years ago held good now. Even if Air Robinson had told them to help themselves lie did not intend them to go there witli sacks and a motor car to carry the fruit away in. They had been trading on a friendship. If permission had been granted why did not Robinson say that it was quite all right when accosted and explain matters instead of keeping silent. He was evidently too honest to resort to such an excuse. He would take the men’s characters into consideration, however, He did not want {•. blncken tlieir present good characters. He considered they had been taught a lesson and as all the fruit had been recovered be would dismiss the case under section 92 ff the Act, and order the return of the fruit. He hoped that this would prove a warning to others that they could not trade on a friendship and old permission.