A BARRISTER AT LAW

NZ Truth, Issue 1153, 5 January 1928, Page 7

A BARRISTER AT LAW

Learned Man Comes To Court

By Way of Dock

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Auckland Representative.) pOE one of such professional tutorial ahd linguistic distinction as Eoy Chatterjee, it must have b een bitterly humiliating when he stood in the dock at the Auckland Police Court the other day, charged with the theft of three valuable rings.

YJIMSELF a doctor of philosophy, he 11 would doubtless have his own con-

"I happened to know the people," continued witness in leading up to the matter of the rings.

struction to the motive that prompted him in certain dealings with an Auckland antique dealer. Being alao a barrister-at-law he would quickly grasp the legal aspect that determined his action as one of theft.

In the dock, Chatterjee presented a striking figure. Of Indian birth, 34 years of age, short and stout of stature, immaculately attired, and wearing conspicuously large tortoiserimmed spectacles, he faced the proceedings with the motionless posture of a soldier at attention; and, but for a stooped whisper to his counsel, Lawyer Leslie Adams, his eyes were kept on Magistrate McKean.

Chief-Detective Cummings outlined the prosecution. Chatter jee had obtained three rings valued respectively at £20, £5 and £10, from William Goodsell, a second-hand and antique dealer. The accused had intimated that he could retail the jewellery to a citizen named Albert Ford. He was to receive commission on the deal and pay the balance to Goodsell

Four months had elapsed and the matter had been placed in the hands of the police Chatterjee was arrested and two of the rings recovered from another secondhand shop. The third ring had not yet been traced.

A plea of not guilty was first entered by Lawyer Adams and the witnesses for the police were called. Later in the proceedings, however, the" plea was altered to one of guilty.

Albert E. Ford, manager of the city tramways, stated that he had never seen the accused before and on no account had authorized him to obtain samples of jewellery.

William Goodsell, carrying on business as a dealer in arts and. antiques, described the business that transpired •when Chatterjee visited his shop on July 31.

Accused was then employed by the "N.Z. Observer" and had. initiated himself by asking witness to advertise in the journal. Further conversation ensued, and Chatterjee produced a letter from Lord de Lisle in England. '

Plea Reversed

Chatterjee's influential friends In the Old Country evidently impressed the antique dealer, for he allowed the accused to take away three' rings, supposedly for the

fingers of Albert Ford*

"I told him he could take away the rings and sell, and then bring me back the money," declared the witness. "1 gave him four clear months before taking proceedings. I wrote to him in August and the letter was returned to me through the Dead Letter Office." In altering the plea to one of guilty, counsel laid stress on his client's studious career. Besides being a barrister, he also held Heidelburg University diplomas as a doctor of philosophy. "He speaks five languages fluently and has a very meritorious war career." declared the lawyer.

Accused had been only eighteen months in New Zealand, continued counsel, and had genuinely intended to sell the rings on commission. Finding himself flnan-

cially embarrassed,

— ' his client had raised a little money on the rings, thinking that Goodsell "would not mind."

He had lost his position on the "Observer," and was at present engaged by the Dominion Portrait Co., Wellington: his salary being about £10 a week.

"Genet-ally his character is unsatisfactory," announced the Chief Detective on referring the S.M. to a term of three months' imprisonment served by accused in connection with the theft of an overcoat. "Perhaps accused can now tell us where the third ring can be found."

To facilitate police inquiries regarding the third ring, the magistrate remanded sentence until the following morning.

On Chatterjee's further appearance, the third piece of {jewellery had not been recovered, and he was convicted and fined £15, in default six months' imprisonment. An order was made for restitution within three months, of £25 to the owner of the rings.