Second Edition. LINDLEUM AND CROCKERY

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIV, Issue 6, 10 December 1915, Page 6

Second Edition. LINDLEUM AND CROCKERY

LINOLEUM CASE DISMISSED. •V; -'•> -- I f.INED£B FOR THEFT OF : /.CROCKERY? ■'

' At the Stratford Magistrates i* Court lids 'morning, Andrew Naesmith was charged .’with the theft of Sf“' •*’ rpll of linoleum, valued at to, front premise-* of it. fl. Robinson and t ; Son, drapers, Broad a ay, on or about W Obtoher 27.

; Messrs J. • AlcClnggagc and A. W. ’Kaif/; ! j.P!s.| occupied the bench. ’* Mr R. Spence appeared for the acir; eiiSed. , t 'Aioused pleaded not guilty. ■ ’ ■ Wiiliani H. Robinson said the evening previous to the theft he locked the sliop as usual. The linoleum was in fhe recess in front of the shop. As eofin as he arrived at business on the morning of October 28,. he noticed the linoleum was missing. r lhe the linoleum was at the Police Jjf tat ion some days ago; t William McDonald, manager Stratfdrq ’Central Co-op. Store, said the : v accuseiT 1 had. been head baker lor his 1 • rie bad control of the bakehouse 'nuclei; vituess’ supervision. Ac-j CTiSect Had Wen in his employ from ' {’last J’iiiy. On the 3rd December, in ; , ’^mpany‘with the Sergeant of Police, tlto linoleum con -ml Hi in the /’aiftic of' the bakehouse. The "sacks prtxluifed in Court were similar to r %psein which Hour was delivered ‘"^V&Tiisyfirm' ‘ The attic was not sup|posbdTo be .used by anyone. It was not" used to his knowledge. He had K. th . e * ervi s es . Offthe accused on I?may last. 'V 'ln .answer to Mr Speiice, witness 1 ,thV, pahehouse . was situated in Juliet 1 Street." Two bakers were employed. ~ Three. carters and men from ■; the store ’frequented the bakehouse yj] M* ..stoye., had only Supplied one key. He knew theie ; was another key to fit the lock. The !•,; second baker also had a key, which a- | formed ths*t, .the. bakehouse was. not • in - t^ le . Ci ‘Y 'njMlilWw that that may have been so. said- he w as second by the, Central CoP ’ r '%e' ‘hid; nothing;' tb do r i: iWl'fcf'the hakdhmfse. He ‘ hid to ai'he I' m: Hiteobattid" was Kfiout. 1,8 jimhesv'spurtl«e. .ffuW also get into the sittic above , Jhe J>v«iP- -.Hy M t /ecu, employed by i *t?m« firm for'ahour tour yTars, about 12 months' qf that tiine being spent in . the' bakehouse. Me and accused used ,/iily "in the morning ami ’•afcahVuCthe afternoon. Some months ; ' ? ’ago ? he found a key to fit the look.' i He was. generally first to work in ,ihe ; Hiprning, and so opened the bake- ' house. He could not stand outside in the cold each morning. % Last f ’ Thursday- 1 evening he was given the position of cl/ief baker. Witness was j* ’folfto take charge of the 1 bakehouse f •■Ffiddy'"ev , eningV as Naesmith |tv being paid-off that day; /'/The - bakehouse was -f,uK Jl: bf’ smAkeidUß' . vtigHjle -Tfr kSt ! < hd 1 1 i wad:! ft Hfil. , dtl , ‘sorrfetlllfag> WrappletlUp lint 1 ttcksr-'He nMVerl'tdld aUyorie■' about J , Wh' 1 discovery 'bMore last Thursday, 4( ' he'did! He Visited the 1 . bakehouseone Sunday morning about ; ~t^‘. y weeks prevldtis to finding the -•linoleum in the attic. Previous to , vigitilig the bakehouse on the Sunday , morning lie had read in the newspapV. jßrs,.of.theft of a, roll of linoleum. ■ Jlie dpbr was locked, and on trying to .insert . in the bole he found was lot:ked on the inside. HerftKped at the,door and accused J asked him what he wanted. Witness . tokl him what he required and accused said* he would get it Tor him. t As£h*>e‘dT told 'him not to go in the j bakehouse as there was a woman -tbefe- He recognised the sacks pro--5 diM-ed in Court as similar to those :■ dsed, in the bakehouse. He did hot , of' anybody else who could put linoleum in the attic beside ach;vscus«d. ’ * f -T’ ’Cross-examined by, Air Spence, wifcf boss said.the key was left in the door p during the day in order to allow the carters to procure their supply of ..bread. not swear s that the aoor was' always locked after they left in the evening. Accused gave him permission to use bis own key. drs, key ( also, ;ktod the, loci: of the front door of his private residence. He could not remember the exact Sunday on which he visited the bakehouse. It was accused’s business at the bakehouse on Sunday mornings; Witness had no business

to be at the bakehouse on Sundays. Jt was nothing unusual to find Naesmith at the bakehouse on a Sunday. Dale .said from inform•wSnlie received on December 3, he '% visited the * bakehouse in Juliet I Jtyjf&t'. Me procured a ladder, and ‘" entering'the attic he found a roll of‘linoleum wrapped up in two sacks. He* visited accused at his residence ' and told him about the roll of linoleum in the attic. He asked accused if he-was head of the bakehouse, and \A be said he Was. He told Naesmith

the discovery,'«hd asked him for.,, an explanation, and on not roone, he arrestcorroborated Sp| thp evidence given Sergeant Dale. to, remove the linoattic!/Accused told i., 5 tJtojjplice |imo ho, know nothp f about ti e linoleum. ■ Witi&i thought it would take two > tic * fr’ . ' •

In answer to Air Spence, witness denied that he had told i censed while another conc c ermed mail in the next 1 cell. Decision was reserved. .Accused, was. also charged with the theft of a considerable hm-ibnt of crockery from the Central Co-op.* Store between the beginning <>l July and December 3. , The goods were valued at between it and £5. j Accused pleaded guilty. J All; Spence said the accused would' only plead guilty of stealing a certain amount of crockery. j Sergeant, Dale said that all the crockery exhibited in Court was alleged to have been stolen by Naesmith. When, the police took charge of the counsel to sort out the goods stolen, out and some were left in the store. The police could not tell what bad been stolen a’nd what had not. Sergeant Dale invited the accused counsel to soft out the goods s clou. The charge was reduced to the accused. having stolen goods to the value of £1 19s. .Air Spence addressed the Court. After art adjournment of ten minutes the Bench dismissed the first charge the seriior J.P. stating there was considerable doubt as to the number of who had access to, ~: the bakehouse; „ . On the second charge, the accused . was fined £6 and the goods were ordered to be returned. j Sergeant Dale asked lor two witnesses expenses,/ which were granted to the amount )of 6s.