THEFT AS A SERVANT

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28896, 16 May 1959, Page 17

THEFT AS A SERVANT

Woman Fined £25 Found guilty by a jury of stealing £25 as a servant after being charged with the theft of £1996, Margaret Mary Frances Millar, aged 39. was fined £25 and ordered to pay £5O towards the prosecution. costs by Mr Justice Haggitt in the Supreme Court yesterday. She was given two months to pay both sums. Millar was found to have taken the money from the Lyttelton railway bookstall while employed there by Frank Ellis Revell and Doreen Melba Revell. The fact that the jury had found her guilty of stealing £25 when the indictment was for a much larger amount indicated that the jury had limited her peculation to taking money for lunches when kept late by her employer, said Millar’s counsel (Mr K. A. Gough). Considering the circumstances the offence was not a serious one of its type. According to the probation officer’s report Millar had led an exemplary life up to the time of the offence. She did not appear to have committed the offence under the compulsion of repaying large debts and there was no evidence that she had lived a life of extravagance.

The conditions of her employment were conducive to the commission of such an offence, said Mr Gough. Her employer had given irregular relief at the end of the shifts: there had also been an atmosphere of laxity with stock being transferred, private goods being charged to the business, and money being taken from the till by the proprietor.

Counsel asked that the offence be treated as a trivial one and a modest fine imposed. His Honour said that although the jury had obviously accepted that Millar had taken money only for meals it had found that she did so without authority. He could not therefore treat the matter as being trivial. If the Crown had proved that she had indulged in systematic pilfering he would have sentenced her to imprisonment. Probation would not be appropriate in this case and the end of justice would be met by a fine.

YOUTH’S FATAL NEGLIGENCE

Corrective Training Ordered Corrective training and seven years’ disqualification from driving were imposed by Mr Justice Haggitt in the Supreme Court vesterday on Michael Adrian Lister, aged 21. on a charge of negligent driving causing death. Lister had been acquitted by the jury on a charge of reckless driving and the evidence had shown that his only negligence was in cornering at an excessive speed, said his counsel (Mr B McClelland) But none of the grosser features of offences of this kind were present. There was no suggestion that liquor played any part in the offence and there was a possibility that the defective springs on the ear could have been a partial cause of its overturning. Counsel conceded that Lister had previous convictions for motoring offences and shop breaking: but the sentence of corrective training suggested by (he probation officer was quite unsuitable, he submitted. “The probation officer has never seen the accused or his parents and has relied on what was told him by the Ashburton authorities.” said Mr McClelland. Counsel submitted that a fine and disqualification from driving for a long period would be an appropriate punishment. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) said the probation officers considered that in view of the failure of past efforts to put Lister on the right path, corrective ' training would be the right sentence to impose. In addition to a conviction for shop breaking. Lister had eight previous convictions for motoring offences, said his Honour. He appeared to be quite irresponsible as fai as motor vehicles were concerned. “I cannot escape the conclusion that probation or a fine are out of the question and the proper course for me to take is to sentence you to corrective training,” said his Honour.

SENTENCE FOR RECEIVING

Corrective T raining Imposed Lyall Robert Lewis, aged 22, was sentenced by Mr Justice Haggitt in the Supreme Court yesterday to corrective training on a charge of receiving cigarettes and tobacco valued at £6 5s 4d. His Honour remarked that Lewis had obviously realised that it was a very serious offence. He was on probation at the time of the offence and his behaviour had been far from satisfactory. “It is clear that you require a stronger lesson in discipline than you have received in the past.” he said. Mr J. G. Hutchison, for Lewis, said the offence was a stupid one and was the result of the accused’s mingling with the wrong people. A shorter and more definite sentence would be more appropriate than corrective training.