WOMEN'S CRIMES

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 39, 15 February 1945, Page 6

WOMEN'S CRIMES

THEFTS FROM SHOPS

MANY CHARGES ADMITTED

On charges of theft two women, Noeline Joyce McCracken, aged 30, domestic (Mr. G. Skelton), and Dulcie Mary Watson, aged 33, domestic (Mr. A. M. Finlay), appeared before Mr. J. Morling, S.M., this morning. De-tective-Sergeant Aplin prosecuted. Both accused pleaded guilty, McCracken to 22 charges and Watson to 20. Detective-Sergeant Aplin stated that the charges against Watson were in respect of the theft of property valued at £110, and those against McCracken involved property valued at £107. The property included clothing, linen and dress material, and most of the articles were not coupon free. The thefts extended over a period from March 1, 1943, to February 6 of this year. Following interrogation by the police the homes of the accused were searched and a large quantity of property found. The accused had stated that they had known each other for the past seven years, and had been associated in stealing for three or four years. The property had been taken from 27 different business firms, continued DetectiveSergeant Aplin. This was not the usual case of shop lifting, he stated. The accused had been associated in a series of systematic and well organised offences. The only thing he could say in their favour was that when they finally admitted the thefts they gave the police what assistance they could. Neither had been before the Court before. Worried About Husband Mr. Finlay stated that Watson started doing this sort of thing when she heard her husband was missing. He had first been reported a prisoner of war, and then she was told the prison ship on which he was travelling had been torpedoed, and she still did not know whether he was dead or alive. Her health had been affected, and she was in a nervous state. Watson had rot taken anything when on her own, but had always been in the company of the other accused when the thefts were committed. She had not used any of the articles stolen. Counsel made a strong plea for leniency as Watson had two young children, who would suffer if she was imprisoned. There was no one else to look after them. On behalf of McCracken, Mr. Skelton said that the articles taken were of a nature accused did not require, and they had not been used. The probable motive was the excitement of being able to commit the offences. McCracken had never taken any property except when the two accused were together. She was in poor health. She was separated from her husband, and as she had two children of school age to look after she merited the same consideration as Watson. "You two women put your heads together to carry on a career of dishonesty," said the magistrate. "His first thoughts were that they should both go to gaol. However, he had decided against this because of certain circumstances brought forward by counsel. The children would suffer if the accused were imprisoned." Each of the accused was convicted and fined £10 on one charge, convicted and placed on probation for a year on a second charge, and convicted and discharged on the remaining counts.