CHARGE OF THEFT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 51, 28 January 1938, Page 2

CHARGE OF THEFT.

MAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Charged with the theft, at Palmerston North on December 20, of £3, Alfred Dell Reuben Butler, alias Little, aged 21, appeared before Messrs R. B- Robertson and J. A. Cruickshank, J.P.’s, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Detective-Ser-geant Meiklejohn conducted the proceedings for the police,* and Mr G. Crossley appeared for accused. Evidence was given by N. C. McAffer, tailor, of Cuba Street, that early in December Mr S. Andrews called at his shop and ordered a pair of trousers, valued at £3. Accused, who had been in his employ for 2 years and 3 months as a presser, was sent to Mr Andrews for the cheque in payment. When he returned. he stated that Mr Andrews had written out the cheque, but had said it would not be valid until his father signed it. Subsequently accused was 6ent several times to collect the cheque, but on each occasion returned and said the Andrews were not in. Witness had not received the cheque or payment for the trousers. Accused was receiving the award wage of £4 15s weekly, and had drawn £l6 or £l7 onlv a week before Christmas.

Spero Andrews testified that he had ordered the pair of trousers, which were to cost £3. Accused called on two or three occasions for payment, but cheques from the business reouired the signature of witness’s father, as well as his own, and owing to his father being absent, witness informed accused that he could not get the cheque signed. The same position arose once or twice again, but witness had written the cheque out, and said he would get his father to sign it. Later this was done; accused called for and received the cheque, and said he would send a receipt. When writing out the cheque, witness could not remember the name of the company, and made it a cash order pavable to accused. Three weeks later accused called with the account, hut witness told him he thought he had paid him. Accused denied having called in aonin for the properly signed cheoue. Thinkino- he could trust accused, witness did not ask him for a reoeint. Miss T. Andrews, a s : «ter of the previous witness, stated in evidence that she was present when her brother tore the cheque out of tlm book and eave it, to aoonseH, who said Tie -vronld bring hack the receipt. Her father bad previously signed the cheque, though she was not present when he did so. Evidence was given by a shop assistapt that the cheque produced had been tendered to ber in payment for Chris+mas cards valued at 2s 3d. Witnogs had never seen accused before. She did not know name or address of the person who hnd the cheque, but it was a lady who witness bad seen on a number of prior coon, sions as a customer in the shon. Witness had pot seen her since +he purchase of the Christmas cards was made. Detoe+ive Comutnn gave evidence that, when interviewed. acei Ise d er nlained that, he had called several times at the shop for the ch-'-ue hut denied ever receiving it. When he called W’’th the account. Mr S Andrews paid it bad b e en paid, and later th" lafter’s father had called round for a reoeint. paving ha bad the cheque, which had been cashed at No evidence was colled for the defence and neonsed. who pleaded not Clliltv. w—q cenamit-ted to the n°xt sos. sion of +l-0' dunreme Court at. Palreerc +en V.wfll for trial, bail hofr'e' -a newed in his own recn"nisance of £2O and one suretv of £2O.