SHANNON BURGLARS CONVICTED.

Shannon News, 3 December 1929, Page 3

SHANNON BURGLARS CONVICTED.

SCENE OF HAVOC AT DAIRY COM-

PANY’S STORE

YOUTHFUL INVADERS HAD HAD A FEW DRINKS. The Magistrate's Court at Palmerston North resembled a general store yesterday morning, when Daniel Gilchrist, aged 23, Gordon Max King, aged 19, and Algar.Roy Douglas Mason, aged .19, appeared before Messrs J. H. Ste\ - ens and G. 11. Espiner, J. 'sP. Hats, suits, boxes of chocolates, clocks, rugs, fancy goods and a miscellaneous collection of other articles exhibited in the Court represented goods recently recovered by the police. Gilchrist and Mason were charged that they did unlawfully, and without colour of right, but not so as to be guilty of theft within the meaning of the Crimes Act, 1908, convert to their own use a motor car, the property of Sydney Charles Davison. The three were collectively charged with breaking and entering a store at Shannon on November 20th and stealing cigarettes, cigars, shirts, rugs, clothes, boots and other goods of a total value of £9O, the property of the Shannon Co-opera-tive Dairy Company, Ltd.’ Gilchrist and King are residents of Palmerston N., Mason coming from Shannon. Mason and Gilchrist both pleaded guilty to the first charge. 1 MOTOR CAR TAKEN. I

“On November 19, Gilchrist and Mason took a motor car from the Square and drove it to Shannon,” said Senior-Detective Quirke. “They left the vehicle there in a slightly damaged condition. The car was taken with a view to the commission of an offence of a more serious nature. However, I suggest that the pair be convicted and discharged for the offence.” The Bench adopted the suggestion. All three then pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking and entering and theft.’

Dealing with the charge, the SeniorDetective said that, after leaving the motor car, the three had borrowed a lorry. Two of them had entered the stora by a window and had let the other one in through the front door. Goods to the value of £9O had been removed, the property being recovered in possession of two of them. Charles M. Cronquest, secretary in the employ of the Shannon’ Co-opera-tive Dairy Company, Ltd., stated that he had charge of a shop owned by the company. On Tuesday, November 19, at 5 p.m., he had left the premises securely fastened, but the next morning he liad found the office, window and the store door wide open. The wind'ow appeared to have been forced and the catch broken away. The drapery department was found to be in complete disorder, goods being taken from the shelves and strewn about. It was soon ascertained that a large quantity of goods had been stolen. The articles produced in court he recognised as being part of the stock missing from the store. The total value of the articles stolen was £9O 13s. He knew the accused Mason, but not the other two. STATEMENTS BY ACCUSED. Senior-Detective Quirke said that lie had inspected the store after the robbery and subsequent inquiries in Palmerston North and Shannon, and, on November 21st, had searched premises occupied by King and Gilchrist. The goods produced in the Court had boon found, a large quantity being located in a bedroom. Both had admitted having committed the robbery in conjunction witli Mason. In a statement, Gilchrist had said that he and Mason had taken a ear from the Square and had driven to Shannon, where they had picked up King. A lorry had been borrowed and the’ robbery carried out. King had been subsequently interviewed and had admitted being implicated in the theft, stating that the other two had let him in through the front door. None of the goods had been found in his possession, the whole of the proceeds of the robbery having been taken to Palmerston North. Detective Bussell corroborated the evidence given by Senior-Detective Quirke, He added that Mason, in a statement, had said that all three had eaten a few chocolates after the robbery and had smoked some cigars. They had" had a few drinks, but had known what they were doing. This concluded 'the ‘evidence. All three accused pleaded guilty and were committed to the Wellington Supreme Court for sentence.

Answering the Bench, the senior-, detective said that the accused had certainly had a few drinks, but he did not consider that fact any excuse for crime. In this case the accused could not have been drunk, as they had driven a motor car.—Standard.