1,641. Reference : MM-1-21-325

The case of 900,000 Baht taken from the municipal treasury about 2 years ago.

| 28 November 1968. The municipal accountant misappropriated funds of 900,000 baht. This case highly raised the interest of the public and the court had been questioned for nearly two years. | Punch card

1,642. Reference : MM-1-21-326

Armed robbery.

| February 18, 1969. The judge, Penthip, and the prosecutor, Nuan, inquired about a robbery and assault case. The defendant and two others accused in the case looted the plaintiff's money, then assaulted the plaintiff's mother. The local police were a witness in this case. However, the prosecutor had carefully questioned the plaintiff on his words. She wanted assurance that the plaintiff was willing to plead, not to incriminate the defendant or not to be forced by the police. On March 28, 1969, the defendant was released due to insufficient evidence. Thawee noted that the defendant may have been taught by the police. | Punch card

1,643. Reference : MM-1-21-327

investigating arson Ws Derpite con fessiom.

| March 5, 1969. There was a case of arson in Tambon Wiang, Amphur Fang. It was caused by a defendant who did not want his brother to meet the plaintiff. They were in a severe brawl. As a result, the defendant committed arson at the plaintiff's house. | Punch card

1,644. Reference : MM-1-13-74

House number HH77

| House number HH77 (Mai Chanta) | Punch card

1,645. Reference : MM-1-21-328

Mal Byers tells of legal cases.

| March 5, 1969. There was a case of arson in Tambon Wiang, Amphur Fang. It was caused by a defendant who did not want his brother to meet the plaintiff. They were in a severe brawl. As a result, the defendant committed arson at the plaintiff's house. | Punch card

1,646. Reference : MM-1-21-329

Defence of policeman's grudge against a charge of heroin.

| February 17, 1969. One man was arrested on charges of heroin abuse when he went to receive souvenirs from Bangkok. However, he plead that he was arrested because he bothered one of the police during the arrest. The other defendants plead that the man did not abuse heroin. On 19 February 1969 the court clerk provided information that the wife of the man who was accused of heroin abuse had been arrested in a case of heroin trade. It was possible that the defendant might be guilty, but because of insufficient evidence, the case could not be tried. | Punch card

1,647. Reference : MM-1-21-330

Murder at Phraw.

| March 7, 1969. The Office of the Public Prosecutor decided not to prosecute a case in the Court of Appeal. In the place of the crime, there was only one witness to accuse the defendant and he saw him only for a moment in dim light. It was a commonly held belief that the witness could not identify the perpetrator. In addition, the witness confirmed that the accused was drunk and unconscious. In fact, the defendant was arrested because he was stranger. | Punch card

1,648. Reference : MM-1-21-331

Murder at M.Phraw.

| February 13, 1969. It was impossible that the suspect who committed the murder slept at the home of the village headman. | Punch card

1,649. Reference : MM-1-21-332

Murder at M.Phraw.

| January 30, 1969. Thawee doubted that the second defendant, who was his client, was guilty, because he tried to cover up the verity, which may adversely affect the case. And Thawee believed that Nual bribed the police to smear his client. | Punch card

1,650. Reference : MM-1-21-333

Murder at Phraw.

| January 24, 1969. Badin and Thawee noted that during the identification of the suspect, the police did not bring the one, only witness. (event continued from the notes in the document number MM-1-21-335). | Punch card