Express and Advertiser, November 25, 1933. Pg. 16 PRISON FOR BURNLEY MANUFACTURER. FOUND GUILTY OF RECEIVING COTTON BEAMS. FATHER’S RECORD OF PUBLIC WORK. At the Preston Intermediate Sessions, last Thursday, Alwyn Sutcliffe (35), of Queen’s Park-road, Burnley, a cotton wadding manufacturer, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, for receiving cotton beams knowing them to have been stolen. Sutcliffe, who pleaded guilty to two further charges of receiving, swooned in the dock when sentenced was passed, and had to be assisted from the court by warders. Albert Tunstill (36), former winding master at Brierfield Mills, of Hartington street, Brierfield, was bound over for twelve months, in the sum of £5, for stealing cotton beams. The accused were Allan Tunstill (36), winding master, of Hartington-street, Brierfield, Robert John Edwards (28), labourer, of Brierfield; and Alwyn Sutcliffe, Ford Bank, Queen’s Park-road, Burnley. Tunstill and Edwards were accused, each on four counts, of stealing from Brierfield Mills, Ltd., Brierfield, three full back-beams of cotton yarn on October 30th, October 17th, October 20th, and October 24th this year. There were alternative counts of receiving. The accusations against Sutcliffe were of receiving, between September 1st and October 29th, 28 beams of cotton yarn, and on October 30th of receiving a beam of cotton yarn. Mr. T. B. Hinchcliffe prosecuted, Mr. Glyn Blackledge appeared for Edwards, Mr. W. Clothier, K.C. and Mr. B. Ormerod were for Sutcliffe, Mr. E. Rowson held a watching brief on behalf of the Brierfield Mills, and Tunstill was not represented. During Wednesday’s hearing the jury, on the direction of the chairman (Mr. H. P. Glover), found Edwards “Not guilty,” and he was discharged. Mr. Hinchcliffe, opening the case, said Tunstill and Edwards were employees of Brierfield Mills, Tunstill as winding master and Edwards as his labourer. Tunstill received a wage of £2. 5s. 8d. a week, and Edwards £1. 15s. 3d. Sutcliffe was in business on his own account as a cotton wadding manufacturer at Burnley. Tunstill was in charge of the incoming and outgoing of beams. The alleged offences took place always between 12-30 and 1-30, when Tunstill and Edwards were left alone in the warehouse of the mill. Mr. Blackledge interposed that there was no evidence in the depositions that Edwards did not go home to his dinner. Mr. H. P. Glover (the deputy-chairman): I think you are right about that. They would hear that between September 1st and October 30th Sutcliffe engaged motor lorry drivers to go the mill, and that his instructions, in one case, at any rate, were to go to the mill “to get the stuff.” He gave the lorry driver an envelope with instructions to hand it to Tunstill. Sutcliffe accompanied the lorry driver until within a few yards of the mill when he would get out and instruct the driver to proceed to the mill, get the beams, pick him up on his way back, and drive to Sutcliffe’s own mill. Either Tunstill or Edwards would help the driver to load the beams on the lorry. Defending counsel objected that in the depositions there was no evidence that Edwards handled the beams. Neither Tunstill nor Edwards had any authority to deal with the beams, the prosecution added. No records of transactions were in the company’s books. The beams were sold to dealers, for there was no question with regard to their integrity. When charged on October 30th, Tunstill said, “I have nothing to say,” and Edwards said, “am saying nowt just now.” Later, when charged with stealing the remainder of the beams, Tunstill said, “That’s right,” and Edwards, “I have nothing to say.” Both searched and £15. 9s. 8d. was found on Tunstill and £6. 8s. 9d. on Edwards. The money on Edwards was found hidden up the leg of his trousers. Sutcliffe was arrested while in one of the lorries, when he was returning from the mill with three beams on board. Police officers asked him where he was taking the beams, and he said, “To my mill in Yorkshire-street. I bought them from Mr. Dyson, of Brierfield Mills.” Mr. Dyson, managing director of the mill, had never sold any of those beams to Mr. Sutcliffe. At the police station Mr. Dyson was sent for, and Sutcliffe said to him while they were alone, “Can you make some arrangement about this job? I have paid dearly for these.” Mr. Dyson said, “Who are you? What Sutcliffe are you?” and Sutcliffe replied, “I am Alderman Sutcliffe’s son, the ex-Mayor of Burnley.” Mr. Dyson told him that the matter was in the hands of the police. When Sutcliffe was later cautioned and charged, he replied, “I never thought they were stolen.” “Rather Thin” Evidence. Mr. Hinchcliffe added: “I think it only right to tell you at this stage that as regards Edwards, the evidence of larceny against him is, if I may say so, rather thin. I must confess that there is very little evidence, practically no more than the question of the money being hidden up his trousers leg.” When the case was resumed last Thursday, William Hamilton, motor driver, said he went with the last witness to the mill at Brierfield on two occasions in October. On both visits three beams were put on the lorry. Mr. Sutcliffe joined them on the way back, and the beams were taken to the Rishton Mill. Cross-examined, he said there was nothing suspicious about the transactions, which were quite open. William Fletcher, yarn agent, St. Annes-on-Sea, said he saw Sutcliffe on September 18th. He was told that Sutcliffe had six beams for sale which came from a firm that was giving up business. Witness did not buy the beams, but acted as his agent. Later he sold another twelve beams from Sutcliffe. Replying to Mr. Clothier, witness said he had always found Sutcliffe straight and honest. Walter Sidgreaves, yarn and cloth agent, of Manchester, gave evidence of buying beams through Fletcher. He had no dealing with Sutcliffe, whom he did not know. Cross-examined by Mr. Clothier, he said inquiries about Sutcliffe showed his reputation to be very good. Detective-Sergt. Bridge, Nelson, said that on October 30th he and Inspector Fenton kept observation on Brierfield Mills. About 1-30 p.m. they saw Cook and Bradbury drive up in a lorry to the warehouse. A few minutes later it left loaded with what appeared to be cotton beams, which were covered with a sheet. At Quaker Bridge the lorry stopped, and Sutcliffe got in. Stopped by Police. Nearing Burnley they stopped the lorry, and Sutcliffe was told they were police officers. He was cautioned, and asked where he was taking the beams, and from where he got them. He replied, to his mill in Yorkshire-street. He had bought them from Mr. Dyson at Brierfield Mills. Sutcliffe asked to see Mr. Dyson, and the two had an interview at the police station. An examination of Sutcliffe’s books revealed no note of the purchase of beams from Brierfield Mills, but there were entries of the sale to other mills of beams which had been identified by Mr. Dyson, senr. Witness arrested Tunstill on October 20th, and charged him with stealing three beams, valued at £37 11s. 6d., the property of Brierfield Mills. He replied, “I have nothing to say.” On November 10th, he was charged with stealing from Brierfield Mills, some time between September 1st and October 29th, 28 beams of cotton yarn, valued at £350 5s. He replied “That’s right.” Inspector Fenton (Reedley) gave corroborative evidence. Tunstill, in the witness-box, stated that one day Sutcliffe’s manager, Cook, remarked to him and Edwards in the mill that they appeared to have a lot of beams there. Cook asked if they would care to see his boss, and Tunstill asked who he was. The reply was “Sutcliffe. Don’t you know him? His father used to be Mayor of Burnley.” He asked what Sutcliffe wanted to see them about, and he was told it was “about a beam or two.” He was reminded that Edwards’s wife might soon be in bed, and had other domestic difficulties, “and with that I fell.” He went so see Sutcliffe, who said “Well, what about it?” Sutcliffe said he would give £14 to join at for three beams. “The Trouble Started.” That ended it, and the trouble started,” concluded witness. “He said, you will never get rich with having to work for it.” In reply to Mr. Clothier, he denied that he had sold beams from the Brierfield Mills to Anybody before Cook came to see him. He said he drove up to Sutcliffe’s in his motor-car. He was in charge of 90 work-people, and his wages were £2. 5s. 6d. He was married, and had a child. Asked how he could afford to run a motor-car, he said his wife worked and earned £2 7s. on the average per week. The car cost £18; it had not been paid for yet. He did not give any indication that he had authority to sell beams. He “fell for” Edwards, being sorry for him in his difficulties. Cross-examined by Mr. Clothier, Tunstill admitted Sutcliffe told him he had had some Brierfield Mills beams from a man named Stanworth, and agreed that he had sent a sample beam to Sutcliffe. He (Tunstill) did not know what a “reject” was. Mr. Hinchcliffe; Do I understand that you admit stealing these beams? – Yes, along with my partner. Do you know how many? – No. When the inspector told me he had recovered 31 I nearly dropped, for I did not think there were so many. Did you sell all that you stole from the mill? – That is a bit complicated. First of all Edwards said, “There is a chap who wants some beams,” and I said, “I’ll have nothing to do with him.” At night he came and gave me £4 10s., and said he had sold three beams. I asked him who to, and he said “To a big ginger chap.” Mr. Hinchcliffe: Did Sutcliffe know perfectly well that you had no authority to deal in these matters?-Yes, or he would not have gone about it in the way he did. Sutcliffe’s Evidence. Sutcliffe was then called as a witness. He said he bought large quantities of yarn, chiefly “rejects.” He remembered Stanworth coming to him and selling him some beams. Cook found the mark “B.M.” on one of the beams, and suggested that the beams might have come from Brierfield Mills. He (Sutcliffe) told Cook to go to see if Brierfield Mills were selling beams. On that day he (Sutcliffe) was in Manchester. After Cook had been to the mill, Edwards and Tunstill came to see him. He (Sutcliffe) said he had some beams from Stanworth, and Tunstill said they had some of the beams to sell. He never considered the possibility of the beams having been stolen. He usually left it to the carriers to collect the beams. On October 30th he had no idea he was being pursued by the police. He was astonished when he was told that the beams had been stolen. Cross-examined by Mr. Hinchcliffe, Sutcliffe said he very seldom received receipts when dealing in “rejects.” There were six payments in his (Sutcliffe’s) book which, he said, were drawn to pay Tunstill. The jury gave their verdicts after retirement, and added a strong recommendation to mercy in Tunstill’s case. It was stated both men had borne perfectly good characters. Sutcliffe was sentenced to six months’ hard labour, while Tunstill was bound over for 12 months. Mr. T. E. Hinchcliffe told the Deputy Chairman (Mr. H. P. Glover) that, if the Bench could see their way to take a certain course about Tunstill, the question of him receiving his job back was under consideration. Mr. W. Clothier, K.C., who had led the defence, said there was another indictment against Sutcliffe from Bacup, and asked if it would be necessary to go on with that. Mr. Glover inquired the position from counsel in the case and Mr. Cunliffe, who had been briefed for the prosecution, said he had very definite instructions. Mr. Clothier said that if the police insisted, he was prepared to plead guilty, and have them dealt with then, rather than have them hanging over Sutcliffe’s head. Sutcliffe then pleaded not guilty to two charges of stealing two cases containing cotton weft, the property of Joshua Hoyle and Sons, Ltd., Bacup, and stealing four cases and a skip containing cotton weft from the same firm. He pleaded guilty to counts of receiving, and these pleas were accepted by Mr. Cunliffe. Mr. Clothier, on behalf of Sutcliffe, said he was a married man with two very young children. Previous Good Character. Sentencing Sutcliffe, Mr. Glover said it was a sad thing to see a man of his position occupying that place. It had been said on his behalf that he had borne an excellent character, and it came out in evidence that his father was a man who had done public work in the county. They desired to take as lenient a view as they could of the offences, but could not consistently with their duty overlook the fact that if there were no receivers there would not be thefts. On hearing the sentence, Sutcliffe swooned, and had to be carried below. In regard to Tunstill, Mr, E. Rowson (representing Brierfield Mills, Ltd) said there were only 12 beams in the indictment, while the evidence showed 31 were stolen. Tunstill said he was first charged with 31 at Reedley, and entered a formal plea of guilty in respect of the other 19 beams. Called by the Deputy Chairman, Mr. John William Dyson (managing director, Brierfield Mills) said that up to Tunstill’s arrest he had no reason to believe he was other than an honest person, and, after any punishment he might get, he would try to do what he could for him and his wife. His place was already filled, but he would find him employment as soon as an opportunity occurred. Tunstill’s wife said he had held posts of responsibility in connection with ambulance and football. Her ten married years had been the happiest of her life, but the last three weeks had been torture. Why he should have been such a fool she could not understand. If they gave him a chance she assured them he would not be there again. Tunstill wept while his wife was giving evidence. Binding him over, Mr. Glover said that for many years he had apparently led a very respectable life, with the confidence of his employers and the trust of his neighbours. They were inclined to take the view that he was tempted and fell, and to give him another chance, but he warned him of the consequences of further trouble. There was no reason why he should not lead a respectable life and make good. Tunstill: Thank you, sir, I also thank Mr. Dyson. An application by Mr. Rowson for an order for the restitution of the 31, beams in the possession of the police was granted.
RATE ARREARS. BENCH DID NOT WISH TO MAKE POSITION WORSE. Alwyn Sutcliffe’s name was called in the Burnley Borough Police Court last Thursday in respect of rate arrears, and it was stated the he owed £27 7s. in respect of the current rate. John Taylor, a rate collector, asked for an order to be made against Sutcliffe. Mr. T. Mellor (the Magistrates Clerk): Sutcliffe does not appear. Perhaps you know something of the reason why. Taylor said that part of the amount demanded was in respect of his house in Queen’s Park-road, and part was in respect of Rishton Mill, his business premises. This action had really been taken, he said, as a precautionary measure. In answer to the Chairman (Mr. G. Hale), Taylor said that the rates of the house were £30 12s., and abut £? of the sum asked for was on account of the house. Sutcliffe had paid £10 by cheque that morning, but had not sent a letter making an offer. The Chairman said the Bench knew the circumstances of Sutcliffe, and they did not wish to make his position any worse. They would make an order on condition that the rating authorities agreed that it should be suspended so long as he paid a proportioned share of the money each month, so that he would be clear by the end of next March. If he paid £7 per month he would thus be clear.
|