THEFT OF BICYCLE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 44, 14 October 1931, Page 4

THEFT OF BICYCLE

S.M. DOUBTS AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENT IN CASE. POLICE TO INVESTlGATE. There were some unusuql developments in a case'heard before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S-M.,. yesterday morning, when his Worship, before sentencing Joseph Rake Te Kiri, an Ohinemutu native, to six weeks' imprisonment for the theft of a bicycle, indicated that he had grave doubts as to the autlienticity of a document produced j by Te Kiri and that he intended j placing the matter. ; in . the hands of j the police for further Jnyestigation i and aptxon., That did not conclude the | ;surprises of, .the case, however, for "after sentencing Te Kiri, the magis'tpate .announce.d, as the prisoner was leaving. the court, that he had. con"sidered the penalty again and had de.eided to reduce it from six weeks jhard labour to 14 days. Outside a Shop. Te Kiri was charged with steaiing a bicycle belonging to a young map |named William James Cann. The machine disappeared from. Cann's home on the night of Tuesday, September 22, and was not, recovered un;tii some days later, when Canii notic'ed a bicycle which he believed to be ;his stoleU property, standing outside a shop next door to his place of employment. When the accused's son came out and went to mount the ma"chine, Cann accosted him and detaim'ed him while the police were called. The bicycle ' had been considerably changed by substituting different handle-bars and another seat. Te Kiri emphatically denied steaiing the machine, but said that he had secured it from another Maori, to whom he had advanced 10s on the . transaction. He had fully believed the bicycle to be the property of the other party. He admitted changing the parts on the bicycle, but said' he had done so in order to make it suitable for his children to ride. As proof of the transaction, Te Iviri al~ leged had taken place with the other Maori, he produced a written receipt 'which he said he had made the other man sign when the machine changed hands. Written by Same Hand. The magistrate showed considerable interest in this document, however, and after obtaining specimens of Te Kiri's handwriting for comparison, he expressed the opinion that both text and signature had been written by the same hand. Under cross-examination, Te Kiri admitted also that he could not find the Maori from whom he said he had obtained the bicycle, although he claimed that he had made an exhaustive search. The magistrate pointed out that accused had dated the document he produced in the 10th month instead ! of the 9th. Te Kiri claimed that this was a mistake, but his Worship sent a constable to the Borough Council offices to obtain an order which Te Kiri said he had signed half an hour before the bicycle transactioh. When this order arrived, the magistrate pointed out that it was correctly dated and commented that it was an "extraordinary thing" that Te Kiri should have mistaken the month half an hour later. Police Action. In his summing up, the magistrate said that there was no doxibt that the bicycle had been stolen and that Cairn was its rightful owner. That heing so the law required the accused to explain in a satisfactory manner, how it came to be in his possession. It was with the nature of the explanation brought- forward by the accused that he was concerned. When Te kiri made his statement to the police he had said that he knew the Maori well, from whoni he said he had obtained the bicycle. Yet a fortnight later, when the case came to court, this man was not forthcoming. This, his Worship consideredj was one indication that Te Kiri's explanation could not reasonabiy be true. Another indication was the document or receipt which accused had produced to prove his case. "It appears to tne that the signature in this receipt has been written by the same hand as that which wrote the body of the receipt," said his Worship. "In dealing with handwriting, although it may be disguised, there are certain small things which show a similarity. There are quite a number of these things in the body of this receipt and the signature. In the course of my experience I have had a good deal to do with disputes concerning handwriting, and it appears to me that the signature of thia document has been written by the ggiSS Sand,- 'disguised, as that which jgrrotei Ihe body of the receipt. Under these eircumstances, I think it my duty to hand the receipt to the Inspeetor of Police for further action."