THEFT OF A CHAIN.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 August 1920, Page 8

THEFT OF A CHAIN.

A HAWERA CASE. ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY. At the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, before Mr. Justice Salmond, Howard W. Snow, a young man 21 years of age, was charged with having on or 'about June 10, 1020, at Hawera, stolen from the dwelling of Mr. H. E. Card, a gold muff chain valued at £(! 10s, the property of Mrs. Clara Fregoning. The prisoner was alternatively charged with having received the gold chain, knowing it to have been stolen. MV. C. H. Weston conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. T. Neave, of Wellington, appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. W. J. Batten, A. B. Edgecombe, I. George, E. D. Lepine, 0. P. George, a] C. Evans, W. Mountford, E. S. Mailman, W. Barnitt, N. T. Rundle, J. W. Abbott and H. Bullin. Mr. Abbott was chosen foreman.

In outlining the cape for the Crown, Mr. Weston said that Mr. Card was the proprietor of the Central Hotel, Hawera, and Mrs. Fregoning was his manageress. Accused stayed at the hotel at the beginning of June under the name of White, and left on June lfe. On the following day, at the Aramoho Hotel, Mr Lindsay, a traveller for a Wanganui (inn of jewellers, noticed the accused come into the hotel and ask the barmaid to lend him £l, accused offering to leave a chain as security. The barmaid refused to lend him the money. Later Mr. Lindsay lent the money to the accused, taking the chain. Accused gave his name and address as 11. W. Snow, Ti.nakori Road, Wellington, and said th« chain belonged to his deceased wife,, Mr, Lindsay afterwards became a little suspicious, and informed the police of the matter. Subsequently DetectiveSergeant Cameron interviewed the accused at Wanganui, and was told the chain belonged to accused's wife, who he said was residing at Cuba Street, Wellington. On June 24, accused was arrested at Palmerston North. He denied at first that his name was Snow, but afterwards admitted the fact. On the Ivay up to ITawera on July 1 accused told Detective-Sergeant Cameron that lie was sorry he had told a wrong story at first.

Mrs. Fregoning, in evidence, identified the chain as her property. She said that when the accused left he did not psv his'board, but left a suit case as security. On the day that he left she missed the chain and other things from her room.

Alexander Edward Lindsay deposed that ho had never seen accused previous to meeting him in the hotel at .Arnmoho. Witness was not suspicious until he ascertained that chains such as the one accused gave to him were then unobtainable. He did not buy the chain, but lent accused £1 on it, stating that he would return the chain on repayment of the money. Evidence was also given by DetectiveSergeant Cameron and Constable McGregor, of Shannon.

THE ACCUSED'S STORY. Accused deposed that he was in Hawera in the early part of June, arranging some vaudeville entertainments in the district. He admitted having given the chain to Mr. Lindsay at the Aramoho Hotel, as security for a loan of £l. He had come into possession of the chain at Hawera, it being offered to him by a friend as security for a loan of 10s. To Mr. Weston: He had £3 10s in his possession when he left Hawera. His board amounted to £a 12s Od, but ho did not pay it. Instead, he left his suit case containing clothing valued at about £4O as security. He had enlisted in the infantry, and had been eight months in camp but had not fought at the war. He had been a fireman on board a hospital ship. His wife was living in Cuba Street, Wellington, but he was separated from her. Any letters addressed to him- eare of her would reach him. He assumed the name of White for theatrical purposes, but used the name of Snow in all ■ matters off the stage. There were two men named Baker and Whal- : ley, who could prove that the chain was given to him as security for the loan of 10s, but he had been unable to find either of them to give evidence on his behalf. Accused admitted that he had been before the Courts on two previous ocea- ■ sions on charges of theft. The first | occasion was at Wellington six years I ago, and the seeond at Invcrcarg'ill in December, 1919,

His Honor, summing up, said that there was no direct evidence that accused had stolen the chain and no one had seen him take it. but it was undoubtedly found in his possession. When asked how the chain cams into his possession accused made most contradictory statements, which were practically of an incriminating nature. Accused's explanation that he Ifcd bought the chain from a stranger he met in a hotel was the usual excuse of a man found in possession of stolen goods, and could' not be considered a satisfactory explanation. His Honor then dealt with various aspects of the case, and pointed out to the jury that the whole of accused's actions were such as would suggest that he was guilty of the charge.

VERDICT OF "GUILTS' The jury retired at 11.43 and returned at 12.34 with a. verdict of "guilty" on the charge of 1 theft. His Honor, in sentencing the accused, said he regretted that it was not the prisoner's first appearance in the criminal Court, although he was only 21 years of age. The prisoner was"firstconvicted of theft in 1014 when, on account, of his youth, lie was convicted and discharged. The leniency then shown him had not done the prisoner any good, for the following year, in Ifll.", the prisoner was found guilty of a very serious offence, the nature of which his Honor was not going to disclose to the Court, and he was sentenced to 3 years' reformative detention. | Again, at the end of last year, the m-i-.jj oner was found guilty of theft and was punished with only a fine. His Honor resetted that the leniency shown to the prisoner had only encouraged him in his evil ways, and it was necessary for him to he taught a* more serious lesson than had been the case in the. past. Fis Honor said that he would, however, take the prisoner's youth into account and would sentence him to 12 months' imprisonment with Imrd lahor.