TYRES DAMAGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 402, 10 July 1928, Page 13

TYRES DAMAGED

MAN CONVICTED OF MISCHIEF STRANGE HAMILTON CASE (From, Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Monday. An extraordinary charge was preferred against William James Brydon, a well-known citizen and football referee, before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Police Court this afternoon. He was alleged to have committed mischief by delibei-ately damaging a motor-tyre belonging to the car of John Monk, grocer, of Hood Street. Defendant was represented by Mr. W. J. King. According to the police Mi*. Monk had, within the past fortnight, had the tyres of his car wilfully injured on three occasions. When he parked his car in Hood Street on Friday night, therefore, a plain clothes’ constable was set to watch the vehicle. Brydon later drove up in his own car, got out and went over to Monk’s car. He made two stabs at a tyre. Before the constable, who was watching through a hole in a gate, could apprehend him, Brydon had disappeared, but the policeman arrested him later. When charged with the offence defendant said, “Why didn’t you arrest me at the time?” The police alleged that a file with a sharp prong found on the seat of Brydon’s car was responsible for the damage. Evidence was given by Monk and Constable Harris, who set watch on accused. Cross-examined by counsel for the defence, Constable Harris said the reason ho did not emerge from his hiding-place immediately the stabbing was done was because he thought he would have missed accused in the crowd in Victoria Street. Mr. King: And you thought it better to remain and watch all that time, instead of coming out and inspecting the car. Witness: Y’es, he might have got suspicious. You can’t catch a rat by standing near its hole. Ernest Maitland Chainey, garage attendant, Hamilton, said the hole in Monk’s tyre corresponded with the file. He had several times mended punctures in Monk’s tyres and they all appeared to be made in the same way. Mr. King described the case as a most extraordinary one, in that defendant absolutely denied having damaged Monk’s tyres at any time. Defendant had taken a prominent part in athletics in Hamilton, and was a wellknown civil servant. He bore an irreproachable character. Monk and 'he were practically strangers to each other. Evidence was given by defendant, who described in detail his movements on Friday evening. He d he was accompanied by a friend named Frederick Fry, who was with him until after he had left his car in Hood Street, just before 8 o’clock. He did not touch | Monk’s car at any time. The file produced was not his. He did not know Monk to speak to. Frederick Fry, labourer, Horahora, said Brydon brought him from Claudelands to Hamilton in his car on Friday evening. They arrived in town about 7.30 p.m., and stopped at Hood Street. Witness did not sec Brydon interfere with Monk’s car. STORY NOT CONVINCING HAMILTON, To-day. In convicting accused the magistrate said he believed the constable's story. Brydon’s evidence was by no means convincing, neither was Fry’s. If the two men had been together in the car why had not Brydon mentioned the fact at the police station on Friday night when he had the chance. It looked very much like an afterthought. His worship added that if the evidence had connected accused with the other injuries to the car he would have had no hesitation in sending him to gaol. As it was he would fine him £2 and costs, and 3s 6d. the cost of repairing the damage. On accused’s application the fine was increased to £5 Is to enable Llus to appeal.