Shoplifting Charges Admitted By Women

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27402, 15 July 1954, Page 9

Shoplifting Charges Admitted By Women

Lorna Gertrude Groome, a dressmaker,* aged 40, was charged in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, with the theft of a frock, valued at £l3 13s, the property of Hay’s, Ltd., at Christchurch, on July 9. She pleaded guilty and was remanded for sentence to July 20. Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., was on the Bench. •Detective-Sergeant G. W. Alty said that a shop assistant of Hay’s, Ltd., had noticed a woman acting suspiciously between some racks of frocks. The woman had been accosted after leaving the shop and was found to be transferring a silk velvet cocktail frock from under her coat to her handbag. She had explained that she had been looking for a cheap frock and had seen the one she had taken. Afterwards she knew she had done wrong, but was too frightened to return it. The Magistrate granted Mr D. W. Russell, who appeared for accused, leave to reserve his submission. An order for the return of the frock was made.

Bail was renewed in the sum of £2O in accused’s own recognisance with one surety of £2O, provided that she reports daily to the police. Mary Brown Comrie, a domestic, aged 63, was remanded for sentence to July 20 after she had pleaded guilty ‘ to two charges of theft. Detective-Sergeant G. W. Alty said that at about 4.25 p.m. on. July 7 a staff supervisor in Hay’s, Ltd., saw accused moving away from the sweet counter with an unwrapped tin of sweets under her sleeve. When accosted accused gave a false name and address. The police were called and searched her shopping basket. In addition to the sweets a woollen scarf and a pair of child’s gloves valued at 13s Id, all of which accused admitted stealing from Hay’s, Ltd., and 10 gladioli bulbs, valued at 4s 2d, which she said she had taken either from McKenzie’s or from Woolworth’s, Ltd., had been found. Accused was represented by Mr W. G. P. Cuningham, who asked to reserve his submission. He requested interim suppression of accused’s name. “Not in this class of case,” replied the Magistrate. An order for the return of the goods was made. Bail was fixed in the sum of £25 in accused’s own recognisance. REMANDED BryaiL Owen Ross, a labourer, aged 22, was changed with stealing a film projector valued at £75, the property of the Prudential Insurance Company, Ltd., Dunedin, on July 3. On the application of Detective-Sergeant G. W. Alty he was remanded to appear on July 22. John Scalmer, a cook, aged 37, was charged with substituting the name Christchurch Transport Board for John Scalmer on a Bank of New Zealand cheque for £l5 12s 6d, the property of David Gibb Johnston, on June 25, with intent that it be acted upon as genuine, thereby committing forgery, and also with the theft of the cheque from Johnston. He was remanded to appear on July 22. NO INCOME TAX RETURNS Henry James Kerr, a labourer, was charged with failing to furnish returns of income tax. Kerr, who did not appear, was convicted and fined £3 and costs on each of two charges. Mr P. T. Mahon, who prosecuted for the Inland Revenue Department, said that Kerr’s employer had advised the department that Kerr had earned more than £6OO in the year ended March 31, 1951, and more than £560 in the year ended March 31, 1952. “This man has never filed a tax return at all and there is a sum of more than £lOO outstanding in income tax,” he said. PRICE ORDER BREACH Avalon Footwear, Ltd., shoe manufacturers, pleaded guilty to three charges of selling shoes while a notice prohibiting their sale was in force. TTie company was convicted and fined £5 on the first charge and was ordered to pay court costs on each of the remaining charges. . Mr W. K. L. Dougall prosecuted for the Director of Price Control. The defendant company was represented by Mr V. G. Spiller. Mr Dougall said that a company might not sell shoes unless it had first had a price order approved or a price fixed for shoes. The order was well-known to manufacturers of footwear. The company had been selling large quantities of shoes when no approval had been made by the director of price control. Mr Spiller said that although the company had. omitted to apply for a price order it had made no overcharge but was selling shoes at a price lower than the price order. FAILED TO NOTIFY SALE Marsh and Maddren, Ltd. (Mr V. G. Spiller) was charged with failing to notify the Price Control Division of selling 22 pairs of brown and 23 pairs of black shoes to D.1.C., Dunedin, six pairs of black shoes to J. K. D. Duncan, and 19 pairs of black shoes to H. and J. Smith. Ltd., Gore, on March 30. The company pleaded guilty to each of the three charges. Mr W. K. L. Dougall, who appeared for the Director of Price Control, said that an automatic approval scheme existed whereby a manufacturer could cost one style of shoe himself provided he immediately gave the department the price which he was charging. This gave the opportunity the department to correct the price if necessary. “This company was sell- , ing a large number of shoes without giving the department the opportunity of knowing that it was playing the game,” he said. Marsh and Maddren, Ltd. was a very young company entering its third year and to reduce overhead costs had reduced its staff which accounted for the failure to notify the department of sales, said Mr Spiller. There was no suggestion of the company

making overcharges. “Right throughout the industry children’s shoes are selling for less because there is intense competition,” he said. The company was convicted and fined £5 on one charge, and ordered to pay costs on each of the other two charges. EXCESS PRESERVATIVE IN MEAT Huia C. Wellsford, a butcher, of Woodend, was charged with selling food with an excessive amount of preservative in it. He pleaded guilty. Mr P. T. Mahon, who prosecuted, said that on March 10 Wellsford had sold mincemeat with five and a half grains of sulphur dioxide to a pound when only three grains and a half of preservative was allowed. “He had used preservative in too high a quantity,” Mr Mahon said. “There was at one time quite a volume of prosecutions for this type of offence. Have there been many recently?” asked the Magistrate. “Not in this district,” replied Mr Mahon. “I cannot recollect more than one or two in the last six months.” The Magistrate: What are the penalties that have been given? Mr Mahon: About £3 and costs. The Magistrate: This defendant will therefore be convicted and fined £3 and costs.

OVERCHARGED FOR GROCERIES Neil and Ailso Rowe, grocers (Mr R. W. Edgley), v.’?re charged with selling goods not in conformity with price orders. They pl?cded guilty and each was convicted and fined £2 and costs on each of two charges. Mr W. K. L. Dougall, who prosecuted, said that end ants were grocers at Springs Junctton ani on April 8 had sold raisins at 2s 2d per lb when the correct price was Is 9d, and eggs at 5s 9d a dozen when the correct price was 5s 6d a dozen. Inspectors had found that a lot of prices for goods in defendants’ shop were incorrect. Defendants had been warned before. INFORMATION DISMISSED Frank- Tomlinson, a quantity surveyor. of Christchurch, was charged with the default of payment .of the minimum wage to a person over the agj of 21 between June 8 and December 23, 1953. He pleaded not guilty, md the information was dismissed. Mr H. J. Wear prosecuted for the Department of . Labour and Employment. Tomlinson was represented by Mr P. H. T. Alpers. Mr Wear said that Tomlinson had employed as an assistant Robert Thomas Milne, who had turned 21 on June 7, 1953, and had paid him £5 15s w'th increments up to £6 12s, when the minimum wage was £7 18s 4d and after September 7, 1953, £8 15s a week. Exemptions to the Minimum Wage Act covered apprentices bound by indentures and other' persons whose contracts of service included trading, instruction or examination for the purpose of becoming qualified in a profession. Among the professions listed was surveying, but Mr Wear claimed that this meant surface surveying only. Neither Tomlinson as an employer, nor the Quantity Surveyors’ Institute of New Zealand as a body, had applied for exemption from the act. The action was not a claim for moneys (defendant had paid £l7 9s 2d of a £5O 3s 4d deficiency in wages) but an action for a breach of tlfe act.

Mr Alpers contended that the word “surveying” included quantity surveying and quoted the Shorter Oxford Dictionary which listed four primary definitions of the word. The fourth was land surveying. “It is an almost impossible contention, is it not, Mr Prosecutor, that these people do not come under the term of profession in view of the very wide interpretation of the term?” said the Magistrate. “You* could go to the absurdity of being a surveyor in a shop for stocktaking then,” said Mr Wear. “It is a wide definition." “You did not draw it and I did mot draw it, but it seems wide enougft to cover this. I do not think there is any warranty for such a restricted view of the word ‘surveying’ as used in the restricting regulation,” said the Magistrate. “I think the word is a generic term embracing various aspects of surveying and surveying professions which are mentioned in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary.” CIVIL CASES (Before Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M.) SHOPPING HOURS EXEMPTION Sharman and Son?, Ltd., applied for exemption from the Shops and Offices Act, 1921-22, in order to open its delicatessen shop at 4 Seaview road, Nev; Brighton, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., cnSaturdays, and to close ?ts Shop ea'ih Wednesday and Friday evenings. The applicant was represented by Mr R. B. Shand. The Retail Shop Assistants* Ltoion, for whom Mr B. A. Barrer appeal lc 1 objected to the application. Mr W. Mealings attendee 7 , the hearing on behalf of the Department of Labour.

“Does the objection follow th ? pattern of recent applications?” thr Magistrate asked Mr Barrer at the outset of the case.

“Yes,” replied Mr Barrer. “It Is standard pattern to object. The issue is no different from any other. New Brighton is now becoming so much the shopping centre of Christchurch that the original grounds for which ex■'yrrtton was made are nf> longer in force. I have not counted them, but I think there are 62 shops down there now with this exemption; ’ “New Brighton has grov; n to a large degree it should be realist d,” said Mr Shand. “Any benefit which is created is of primary importance to New Brighton shoppers and any facilities that are available to Christchurch shoppers is of secondary importance.” “Since this application follows the gattern of other applications that ave in recent times been created the partial exemption is granted,” said the Magistrate.