A BOY AND A BICYCLE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 48, 18 August 1911, Page 2

A BOY AND A BICYCLE

' CHARGE OF THEFT FAILS. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning a sleepy-looking youth, of Stratford, a laborer, was charged with the theft of a bicycle, valued at £5, the property of Lawrence Newman, at Bell Block, on or about April 20, 1911. The accused pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Dart explained that he had made careful enquiries concerning the age of the accused, and had found he was sixteen years of age. But he had been informed now that the accused was under sixteen when the alleged offence was committed. The Act was not clear as to whether the provisions of the Juvenile Offenders Act' were to be applied to persons under sixteen years of age when brought before the court or 'when'the offence charged was committed. Mr. Fitzherbert said he would rule that the Act contemplated a juvenile at the time of the offence.

Lawrence Newman, who had been employed with the accused on Mr. Lewis Oonnett's farm at Bell Block, said that he had had conversations with the accused about the sale of the bicycle to the latter, and he had said he would sell it for £2. They did not make a bargain. He hnd lent the machine to accused on several occasions, but had not told him he could take it whilst he was away and keep it. He was away for six weeks after Easter, and when he came back the bicycle and the accused were gone. He found the bicycle in the possession of Weir, and made a complaint to the police. He had not heard from the accused since about the bicycle, which he considered was worth £5. George Victor Weir, employed at the Bell Block factory, gave evidence that the accused came to him on the day he left Coßnett's, about the end of April, and asked witness to "swop" bicycles. At first he refused, but ultimately the exchange was made, Kindberg giving five or ten shillings "to boot." Accused told him he had bought the bicvcle from Newman for £2.

Lewis Connett, farmer, at Bell Block, said that the accused had come into his employ just before Newman left on holiday, and was discharged about a fortnight later. He gave accused no permission or authority to remove the bicycle.

The accused lad gave evidence on his own behalf. He said that he had arranged with Newman to buy the bike, and on the day he removed "it he spent £1 14s on repairs, and bought a lamp. He hadn't paid this account yet. He fully intended to pay Newman for the machine.

To Senior-Sergeant Dart: He had seat no word to' Newman. The reason why he had not paid the £2 was that he iiad been out of employment and had no money. He had told Newman that he would take the bike at £2, and that he would take it to New Plymouth to get fixed up. The Magistrate said the case was a peculiar one. In the first place the lad was a juvenile. He was not of brilliant intellect, but a foolish kind of youth who didn't seem to understand things! And he claimed that he was buying the bicycle. The prosecution had admitted offering the bicycle for sale to the accused, who seemed to have!a color of right to it. The case would be dismissed.