POSTAL REGULATIONS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 134, 2 March 1922, Page 9

POSTAL REGULATIONS

ALLEGED MISSING LETTER YOUNG WOMAN BEFORE COURT A girl eighteen and a half years of age, named Irene Frew, was charged before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Police; Court yesterday with fraudulently stating on November 18 that she had posted a postal packet containing a valuable enclosure, whereas she had not posted it. Sub-Inspector McNamlara appeared ifor the prosecution, and the accused, who is married, was represented by Mr. Leicester. Lilian Florence Burns, a domestic, employed at the Convalescent Home, Oriental Bay, stated that she knew the accused, who called and asked for a loan. Accused suggested £lO, but witness did not have that amount, and lent her £4. Two months later she called on accused at Ghuznee Street, and asked for return of the money, but as accused was not in a position to pay, she agreed to wait until the next month. Subsequently, accused told witness that she had sent her a registered letter containing _£4, but as the letter had not been received it was suggested they should go to the post office and make inquiries. They went to tho registering department, but were told to see the assistant-postmas-ter about the matter. In reply to Mr. Leicester, witness said that accused did not refuse to go to the post office. She had been quite willing to do so. Accused thought she had got confused oyer two letters sho had in her possession at the time, and had registered, the wrong one. . Claude F. Rowe, a clerk at the Chief Post Office, said that the accused called at the post office in reference to a letter alleged to have been posted. Accused, who was accompanied by the previous witness, stated that she had posted a letter containing £4 in the pillar box opposite the Bank of New Zealand. She told witness that she had registered a letter addressed to Hastings instead of the one containing the £4. A form was supplied to accused, and sho filled it in in the presence of witness. Inquiries were then mado, but no trace of the missing letter was discovered. She had appeared very much concerned, and had asked him to let her know anything he should find out. Nothing had been discovered, and a few days later the Department had written, asking accused to call on the assistant-postmas-ter. In reply to a suggestion that accused had thought the form sho filled in was merely an inquiry form, witness said it was quito possible to think so. Sho had told him that she had > had two letters to post, and had registered the wrong one. —> Frederick William Penlington, as-sistant-postmaster at Wellington, said that in reply to a letter from his Department, accused called on him at his office, and was questioned about the posting of tho letter. He requested her to sign a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, swearing that she had posted the letter. The seriousness of the position was pointed out to her, and she was led to understand that, should she sign the declaration, and it was found to be false, she would be liable to prosecution. Accused refused to sign, as she had no actual proof of posting the letter; but she made a statement in writing. On September. 19 witness received a letter from the accused, stating that a mistake had been made, and that tho letter in question had not been posted. Accused had said, before being asked to make the declaration, that she was not sure if she had posted two letters or only one, and sho was anxious that the matter should bo dropped. Mr. Leicester said that accused had acted innocently, as she was under the impression that the form she had signed was merely an inquiry form She ha I gone to the post office with letters, and by mistake had registered one addressed to a Hastings resident. Now she could not reco’lect having posted the second letter. Miss Burns, the addressee of tho letter containing tho £4, had called on accused, and they had gone to the post office together. There, they had found that the wrong letter had been registered. In order to get inquiries made she had innocently filled in the form, not knowing what a statutory declaration was. Evidence was given by the accused, who stated that her ago was eighteen and a half years. Sho had been married for eight months, and her husband was an orderly at the Rotorua Hospital. Sho had taken two letters to the post office, one addressed to a Mr. Probcrt, of Hastings, the other to Miss Burns. The first letter had contained a postal order for 75., while the other had contained £4 in notes. By mistake she had given in the wrong letter for registration, and had taken the other away, meaning to post it, but sho could not swear what had happened to it. /Some time after Miss Burns had called, and together they went to tho post office, accused also being accompanied by her husband. They discovered from the registration clerk that the letter addressed to Hastings had been registered. She was then told to go to the assist-ant-postmaster’s office, and there she had filled in what she thought to be an inquiry form. The assistant-post-master asked her if sho wanted to sign a declaration form, but she said she would not, as sho was not certain whether she had posted tho letter. She knew nothing about the declaration, and had asked the assistant-post-master to drop the matter, but was told that unless sho wrote, saying shu had not posted the letter, the matter could not be dropped. That was the reason she had made the written statement that the letter had not been posted. She had filled in the first form thinking she had posted the letter.

The Magistrate said he would dismiss the case, but it would be a warning to people who made statements that they had posted letters when they had not done so.