YOUNG WOMAN’S THEFTS

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 83, 2 January 1930, Page 18

YOUNG WOMAN’S THEFTS

MOTHERLESS GIRL IN COURT GOODS VALUED AT £139 TAKEN Dominion Special Service. Cliristchurcli, December 31. Pleading guilty to charges of stealing goods to a total value of £139/11/0, and of obtaining goods worth £B/14/10 by false pretences, Eileen Olive Holland, a shop assistant, aged 20, appeared in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day. For accused, Mr. F. D. Sargent made a strong plea for probation, but this was refused by the Magistrate, who sentenced her to two years at the Borstal Institute. Chief Detective Carroll said that when accused went to the Farmers’ Co-op and bought goods, booking them up to someone else, she was detained and the police were sent for. After her arrest accused told the detective about the other thefts, saying that she wanted to get them off her mind. She was employed at Hurdleys for four years and stolf while employed there. The thefts were fairly substantial and were committed over a long period. The girl had never been in trouble before. She was living with her father; her mother died some years ago, leaving the father to bring up a family of three. At first the familyboarded, but later took a house, where accused concealed most of the goods. The father did not know of the thefts and the few things he saw in the house were not enough to rouse his suspicion. Apart from the charge she was arrested on, accused volunteered all the other information. “She lived very quietly.” concluded the Chief Detective, “and was not at all a flash girl.”

Mr. Sargent said that it was a most difficult case. Accused was a quiet girl. The thefts were not made along criminal lines to get a living from crime, but the goods were taken to. use when she got married. Most of the goods were recovered and there would be no difficulty about restitution. Mr. Sargent urged that the matter of probation be considered.

’ “Would you mind taking off your hat, prisoner,” said Mr. Mosley. “Here is a girl brought up in good surroundings, not only in her own home, but among quiet and respectable people,” said the Magistrate. “She had had the benefit of going to church regularly. There is absolutely no excuse for it. It makes the series of crimes she has committed very much worse than if she had not had the same advantages. I don’t think it is a case where I can possibly grant probation. If -I do, I will bind my hands to grant probation in a number' of other cases. I naturally desire to grant a girl of twenty probation, but the desire must give place to my duty to the State. ’Phe idea can’t be allowed that till young people who commit a series of crimes be allowed out on probation. There is only one thing to do. It seems to me that she needs control. There is no doubt that this is a great shock to her, but there is no doubt that she will come out strengthened in character and determined not to commit crime.” Accused was convicted and ordered to be detained in the Borstal Institute in Wellington for two'years. A request for the suppression of. accused’s name was not approved by the Magistrate.