CHARGED WITH THEFT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 577, 22 October 1920, Page 2

CHARGED WITH THEFT.

FROM PATUMAHOE GOODS SHED. INFORMATION DISMISSED. When charged at the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., with the theft from the Paturnahoe railway station goodsshed on or about June 17, 1920, of a sack containing a buggy saddle, horse collar, pair hames and traces, pair of winkers and a pair of driving reins, the total value of £7, the property of Thomas Whyte, formerly of Paturnahoe, but now of Cambridge, Edward Olsen, a railway surfaceman at Paturnahoe, pleaded not guilty, and upon the choice as to whether he elected to be dealt with summarily, or be tried before a judge and jury, he selected the former course. Accused, who appeared on remand, was represented by Mr. C. O. Mahony, while Sergeant J. T. Cowan conducted the case for the Crown, and in outlining the facts of the case, stated that on June 17 Mr. Whyte had loaded a truck with various articles, including the sack of harness, and had consigned it to Cambridge, whither he was shifting. The truck, after loading operations were completed, was "tied down" with the customary railway tarpaulins, and the consignment note placed in the usual place provided. Some days later, when the truck had arrived, Mr. Whyte found that the sack containing the harness was missing. He made enquiries, and informed the police. Constable Wolfendale stated that in consequence of a complaint he had received he went to Paturnahoe, and accosted the accused, asking him if he had seen a sack containing harness. The accused admitted having taken the sack from the goods-shed to his house for safety. There was no label or address on the sack. Witness told the accused lie should have notified the railway authorities of what he had done. He obtained a statement from Olsen, which the latter signed. Mr. Whyte had told witness that the sack had been put on the top of the other articles in the truck, and the load had been covered and tied down. Tl'.e accused also told Whyte that he had found the sack in the yard, and as there was no label on it he had taken it home. The harness had been identified by Whyte as his property in the presence of the accused, who did not deny that the harness belonged to Whyte. Witness, when making enquiries, found the collar outside and questioned accused about it. He also admitted that the collar was the one previously in the bag, and which had been used about twice.

To Mr. Mahony: Accused told him his wife had used the horse collar on one or two occasions. He also paid as he found'the sack unlabeled he took it home for safety. There was no one in charge of the Patuniahoe railway station. Accused's house, which was the nearest, was about two chains from the station. AY hen accosted accused was very frank in his statements. To Sergeant Cowan: Accused said he was caretaker of the Patumahoe station. To the Magistrate: Several complaints had been received concerning petty .thieving at the station. Mr. Mahony, in outlining the case for the defence, stated that it was customary for accused to take care of articles found lying about the station yard. He would retain them and would inform the owners, if the articles were branded, that they were at his place. The goods-shed was never locked, and accused acted as a kind of caretaker. Accused had no criminal intent whatsoever. The sack was found by Olsen about a month before the police accosted him about the matter. The accused, Edward Olsen, said he was a railway surfaceman, and was acting caretaker at Paturcnhoe, where he had resided for about three years. In his capacity as caretaker he would fold tarpaulins, clean the sheds, and take care of anything lying about. One night he went to shut the goods-shed door, and while doing so heard something fall. He looked down and saw the sack of harness. He put it into the shed and shut the door, thinking a farmer who had been there during the day had left it behind. There was no label <>n it. About four days l.aier it was it ill there, so for safety's sake he removed it to his home. That was on September 4. There was absolutely no enquiry until the police called. He bung the sack up in his shed. He never used any part of the harness, nor did he authorise anyone else to use it. -He had often found things lying about the yard, had picked them up and taken them home. People would always cali and claim the goods. He had been asked by several people to take care of their goods whenever they arrived. If no one turned up and claimed things that came there unlabeled, or if an owner could not he found for branded goods the stationmaster at I'ukekohe was informed. A number of articles and goods that .had been missed had turned up. On on" occasion he lost a <;oil of wire from the station in spite of the fact that if had been locked up. There was no caretaker or supervisor at the station. He never stole, the goods but took them home to his place for absolute safety.

To Sergeant Cowan: He never reported the matter to Clanger Barrett. He never received instructions from the Railway Department to lake goods, but he took them purely for safety. He never reported the place as unsafe. He could not say for certain the names of the pewple he had asked if they knew of anyone losing a sack of harness. Wit-

ness had a full set of harness. His wife told him she had used the collar, and he told her not to do so again. In three years, of all the goods he had taken home, this sack was the only thing not called for. He remembered a farmer losing some tea, but he never touched it; he always bought and paid for his own tea.

To S.M.: He intended to report the matter of the harness to Mr. Brown after a period of about six weeks. His wife had only put the collar on the horse once, although in his statement to the police he said she had done so on two occasions. Arthur Frederick Brown, stationmaster at Pukekohe, said he was in charge of the Patumahoe station also. He had never had any complaints regarding accused from the railway authorities. To S.M.: All railway employees should report the finding of things right away. He had nothing official regarding goods lost from Patumahoe, but believed goods had often been missed. To Mr. Mahony: The Department took no responsibility for goods lost from Patumahoe because no one was in charge of the station. Evidence was also given by James Brady and Frederick W. Skeet, farmers at Patumahoe, that they appreciated very much the fact that accused took goods and other articles belonging to them to his house for safety. His Worship, in summing up, said he could not find on the evidence submitted that accused actually stole the goods. Accused had assumed a position and liability of taking charge of goods without any authority to do so, and having taken on the position had failed seriously. He had no doubt in his own mind that accused did not have a guilty mind commensurate with the chage laid against him. The evidence was not strong enough for him to enter a conviction, and the information was dismissed.