STORY TOO THIN

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 908, 27 February 1930, Page 1

STORY TOO THIN

POSSESSION OF STOLEN GIG EXPLAINED FINED £5 FOR THEFT After listening to William Henry Lightfoot’s explanation of how he came to be in possession of a gig that had been stolen from a shed in Newton Road, Messrs. D. Donaldson and S. B. Bull, J.P.’s, who presided at the Police Court this morning, adjudged the story too thin and imposed a fine of *£s. Lightfoot was charged with stealing on or about November 1, a gig and harness valued at £ls, belonging to Richard Williams. Mr. Biernacki appeared for defendant and entered a plea of not guilty. Frederick Waterson Matthews described himself as liquidator of the firm of Gfimp.ur, .Joll and Williams, carriage builders. When witness examined the property he found a breaking-in gig left in a shed. He had advertised for an owner, who when he came to claim his property found the gig had gone. Richard Williams, of Carlton Gore Road, recalled sending his gig to Gilmour, Joll and Williams for repairs. He had left it there, as he understood the firm had a possible purchaser for the outfit. Then he had seen the liquidator’s advertisement, and went to claim his property, when it was discovered that the gig was gone. In December witness had seen Lightfoot driving the gig across Grafton Bridge. He had stopped the man and taken his name.

Put in the box by counsel, Lightfoot explained that he had been sold the gig by a .stranger in a train on the way from Wellington. The man gave his name as Lawson, and his address as care of the Y.M.C.A., Wellington. On arrival in Auckland, defendant said, he had gone to inspect the gig. He had then written offering £6 10s for it. A reply had come suggesting £7, and he had sent that amount to Lawson at Wellington. He had then written asking for a receipt, but received no reply. After being stopped on the bridge by Williams, defendant continued, he had written again to Lawson, but his letter was returned through the dead-letter office. Cross-examined by Chief-Detective Hammond, Lightfoot admitted that he had not kept Lawson’s reply to his first letter. He had not registered the letter with the money in it, and had no receipt to show for the payment. Commenting on the Returned Soldiers’ Association badge that accused was wearing on his lapel, the chief-detec-tive suggested that there was no need to wear it so long after the war. “1 suppose you put it on for the occasion,” he said. Mr. Hammond added that inquiries at the Wellington Y.M.C.A. had elicited no trace of the missing Lawson. Commenting on defendant’s past record, counsel said he had been a sergeant in the Seventh Hussars, a sergeant-major in South Africa, and a regimental sergeant-major in the Great War. It was his first appearance before the court, and his story had not been at all shaken by the severe cross-examination to which he had been subjected by the chief-detec-tive. , “Your story is so thin that it lacks the semblance of credence,” Mr. Donaldson declared. “There is nothing to support your explanaticfil—no letter or a Lightfoot was fined £5 and ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses, £l'. He was given a week in which to find the money.