ALLEGED SUGAR HOARDING.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 57, 23 February 1918, Page 15

ALLEGED SUGAR HOARDING.

MISS MARIE CORELLI FINED.

At Stratford-on-Avon Miss Marie Corelll, of Mason Croft, was prosecuted by the Ministry of Food on a charge of unlawful'} acquiring certain articles of food In excess of the ordinary consumption of her household, contrary to the Food Hoarding Order, 1917. There were three separate informations of purchasing sugar in excess of reasonable requirements, the alleged offences occurring during September and November.

iMr Snagge, prosecuting, said that Miss CorelU's household consisted of 6even persons, and was entitled to receive during the period named 321b of sugar, whereas he was instructed she Obtained a total of 1831b, which was independent of the preserving sugar to which she was undoubtedly entitled. Miss Corelli was one of those people able to obtain sugar from two different sources —locally and from London.

Evidence was given of purchases from Lipton's and also locally, and a police constable spoke of a visit to the defendant's house in November, having ascertained that there had been large deliveries of tea and sugar by a railway company.

Miss Corelli, addressing the witness, said: "I hear you have been accusing mc of hoarding. It lias come to a fine thing if women cannot live in their homes without 'being interfered with by the police."

Witness replied that during the month S3lb of sugar and 431b of tea had been signed for by the butler.

■Miss Corelli exclaimed: "It's a lie! The tea has not been delivered here. I shall' have no use for that quantity. Besides, I am a patriot, and would not think of hoarding. I think you police are overstepping your duty In visiting my house. Yon nre upsetting the country altogether with your Food Orders and what not."

Defendant said there were nine persons in the house, not seven.

■Miss Bertha A'yver said she managed the household affairs at Mason Croft. Tbey had made a large quantity of jam, and the extra sugar was used for that purpose. By a majority, the 'Bench convicted on one count, nnd imposed.a fine of £50, with £20 expenses. The two other summonses were dismissed-

The Bench, agreed to state a case.