ALLEGED THEFTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 March 1920, Page 6

ALLEGED THEFTS.

TWO YOUNG MEN BEFORE THE COURT. * CASES REMANDED AND BAIL REFUSED. The two men—Charles and Frederick Magon, of Warea—who were nvrest'.'d on Monday evening by Constables O'Neill (Rahotu) and Clouston (Opunake), in connection with the theft of a quantity of material which 'lias been disappearing for various places along the coastal district for some considerable time past, appeared in Court at New Plymouth yesterday morningMessrs. F. C. Bellrirwr and H. R. Cattley, .T.'sP., were on the bench. The list of theft charges at present preferred against the accused was read out as follows: On June 27, 1919, at Okato, one Swandri overcoat, valued at £4,. the property of Ralph Cassie, Warea. On November !), 1919, at Pungareliti, one set of tea cups valued at £4 Ids, set of breeching valued at £2, and rubber piping valued at Bs, the property of Emanuel Dix, Pungarehu. On August 23, 1919, at Warea, an oilskin overcoat, valued at £3, the property of Peter Healion. On February 17, 1920, at Puniho, one crowbar valued at £1 10s, a claw hammer valued at 6s 6d, three wedges valued at 12s, a loaghandled shovel valued at 15s, and a. sledge hammer valued at 4s, the property of J- S. Fox, Okato. On January 10, 1920, at Pungarehu, two saddleflaps, two stirrup leathers, and two stirrup irons, valued at £2. On October 21, 1919, at Okato, one saddle and bridle, valued at £4 10s, the property of George Benton, Okato. In December, 1919, at Carringtim road, Puniho, one horse collar, valued at £4, the property of Carlin Gill, Puniho. Sub-Inspector Hutton, who represented the police, applied for a remand until the Sth inst.. and intimated that ~lte would then in all probability have to ask for a further remand until the Thursday following. Mr. Ronald H. Quilliam, who appeared for the accused, applied for bail. The police opposed this, Sub-Inspector Hutton pointing out that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant bail. There was still a large quantity of material on accused's property which had to be overhauled, and his officers in the district and a nuir.'jer of influential gentlemen had asked him to oppose bail being granted to the accused. Mr. Quiliianv pointed out that the thefts with which accused were charged were offences on which, if found guilty, the maximum penalty was two years' imprisonment with hard labor, and under Section 368 of the J.P. Act they were entitled to bail as of right. lie further pointed out that the men were farmers with (!5 cattle to mill; and their herd would simply be neglected if the men were kept in gaol. He said they would be much better working their farm than being locked up. Sub-Inspector Hutton repeated his objection, and the bench granted the adjournment, but refused bail. Mr. -Quilliam asked the Justices to stnte the grounds of their refusal as j he would be compelled to make application for bail before the Magistrate. The grounds of refusal were stated to be the number and nature of the charges _ laid against the accused, and the period over which the alleged offences had been committed.