EX-SAFE BLOWER

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 175, 17 March 1932, Page 5

EX-SAFE BLOWER

(Press Assn.

missing explosives

BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF PROBATIONARY LICENSE CASE IN HAMILTON

— By Telegraph— Copyrlght).

HAMILTON, Wednesday. In view of recent safe-blowing cases in Hamilton, one of whieh involved considerable loss and damage, special ; interest attaches to a case in the ; Hamilton Magistrate's Court this ; morning, in whieh Charles Barclay Dewar, aged 57, a convict-^d safeblower, who came out of Mt. Eden • Gaol on January 14 last, plea'ded not e:uilty to a breach of his probationary ; license. i When the charge was read the case had to be stood down for some 20 minutes owing to the non-appearance of counsel for accused. Outlining the circumstances, De-tective-Sergeant J. Thompson said accused was released from Mt. Eden c-n January 14 on probationary license to expire on April 15. One of the snecial conditions of his release was that he took out a prohibition order against himse.lf. Accused did so but committed a breach of the order. The detective-sergeant submitted that the accused committed another breach when he arrived in Hamilton from Auckland early last month. Some days after his arrival he went with his brother to Te Rapa and obtained four plugs of gelignite from a resident there.

Counsel for accused: What has that got to do with the case? Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M.: T don't know. I cannot stop him till he tells me what the circumstances are. Counsel objected to the evidence, but His Worship replied that it might I be a violation of the law and therefore connected with the charge. Deteetive White ■ said on March 7 the accused committed a breach of his prohibition order bv procuring intoxicating liquor. Since coming to Hamilton accused had been in the employment of a convicted thief. He had had gelignite, fuse and caps in his possession. He had not got possession of these explosives at present and could not account for their disappearance. Ilowever, he had admitted being in possession of them and said they were for blowing up fish. The gelignite had been placed in a tin and hidden in a vacant section alongside the house of aceused's brother. It would be higffily improbable that anyone could find the gelignite in that spot. It had disappeared and there had been no explanation as to what had become of it.

Must Have Been Stolen

"When the accused was inte-rview-ed in the presence of his brother the latter said immediately after the safe in the Hamilton Borough Conncil office was blown he went to the. section to see if the gelignite was still there," added the deteetive. "He said it had disappeared and someone must have stolen it." "When the accused was questioned over the safe-blowing he said: Tf tbe whole police force of New Zealand catch me safe-blowing I will not admit it'," said Mr. White. Corroborative evidence was given by Detective-Sergeant Thompson. Accused told him he knew his brother was a convicted safe-blower. He denied any knowledge of who had removed the gelignite. Accused admitted he had been employed by a convicted thief. "He must be convicted because he seems to have been in possession of c-.xplosive without a permit," said His Worship. "He does not deny being in possession of it and this is a violation of the law and therefore a breach of his probationary license." Detective-Sergeant Thompson told

the Court that accused was a convicted safe-blower and he had served two years for breaking, entering and theft. His Worship said if there was no prospect of the. accused reforming he should not have been released on probationary license. "The position is , ridiculously inverted," observed Mr. Wilson, "in criminal cases of this sort. The primary idea is when a judge sentences a prisoner he gives him an appropriate sentence. Nowadays there is no incication of the sentepce the prisoner v.ill serve however because the man is let out earlier hy the Pri^ons' Bcard on certain conditions. If he does not fulfil these conditions his punishment is left to a magistrate or justices. The final dictum is left to them as to how long the man will serve. "The serious part of this case is that the man has been convicted of safe blowing, has received the penalty, has had his liberty and has been found in unlawful possession .of explosives," concluded His Worship. Accused was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. - Dewar was earlier charged with procuring liquor during the currenc/ of a prohibition order. He pleaded not guilty. Police evidence showed that accused, although not under the influence cf liquor, smelled strongly of it when interviewed by the police. He was convicted and fined £1.