THEFT AT PARTY

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 184, 3 May 1934, Page 11

THEFT AT PARTY

Wife’s Rings Taken From Bedroom THREE WOMEN CONVICTED Submissions that the theft of jewellery was the result of what counse described as a "drunken prank ; that accused were not possessed of a criminal mind, and that there was an entire absence of mens rea were advanced counsel In the Wellington Magistrates Court yesterday, when three young married women were charged with the theft of five rings and a necklace belonging to the wife of Squadron-Lende G. L. Stedman, of' the Wellington Aero were Valma Sinden, for whom Mr. G. C. Kent appeared, Mona Amalrlc, and Eileen Johnston, both of whom were represented by Mr. J. u. Willis. It was stated on their behalf that they had taken the rings and necklace while at a party at the Stedmans house not knowing what they were doing. Realising the position later they endeavoured to return the articles, and actually handed them over to a man, George Alexander Low, canvasser, aged 31, to post. The rings were not received by the Stedmans. The women chose to be dealt with summarily, while Low, who was charged also with the theft, elected to be tried by the Supreme Court. ‘ The women were each admittec. to probation for two years. Low’s case has not yet concluded. Party for Club Members. s

Detective-Sergeant Revell, in outlining the case, said that on February 23 last Mr. Stedman arranged with members of the Wellington Aero Club to hold a party in his house on Seatoun Heights. The three accused attended, and before they left they went to Mrs. Stedman’s room and tried on her rings. In fact they wore them away. When accused were seen by members of the aero club they wanted to find out some means of sending the rings back. They met a man named Low who said he wo.uld return, them, but they had not been returned. Beryl Eileen Stedmah, wife of the squadron-leader, in evidence said that she permitted members of the club to hold a party at her house. Neither she nor her husband was present. She did not see accused at the house and said that they had no authority to remove the rings, which were left in a jewel-case in her bedroom. She ■ discovered when she went home that night that a ring was missing, • and biter found that altogether six rings and a necklace had disappeared. She had received one of the rings back, but did not know who returned it as it arrived anonymously. A fair value or the jewellery, she said, would be £3B/10/Detective N. J. McPhee said that the three accused called at the detective office on March 23. and Informed him that they had been to the party at the Stedmans’ house and had taken three rlngs'from the bedroom. It was stated that at the time they, took the rings they were under the influence of liquor. They communicated with Mr. Stedman and his wife, and were requested to ascertain what had become of the rings, otherwise the police would be informed. Accused Sinden made the statement. find it was sighed by all three women. , . , , To Mr. Willis the detective . stated that the visit to the detective office was quite voluntary. ■Appeared Quite Honest.

To Mr. Kent, witness said that Sinden, who had acted as spokeswoman, seemed anxious to clean up the trouble. She appeared quite honest about it. Mr. Willis claimed that all the trouble was the result of a prank. It was that, the women' had taken the rings, but evidence would show that they bad endeavoured to return them. He was instructed that the rings had been handed over to Low at his invitation. Mr. Willis submitted that there was aP entire absence/of mens rea and that there was no intent to deprive the owner permanently of the His four submissions would be that tne women were drunk; that evldenc would be given that they had communicated with Stedman; that they voluntarily went to the detective office. and that a statement that they had ghe. the rings to Low was not Evidence on the lines of counsel s statement was given by the three accuscd. . In admitting the women to probation. Mr W F. Stilwell. S.M.. said he was quite satisfied that they had had liquor but he was satisfied also that at the time of the offence the women undeistood clearly and unequivocally the nature and quality of the aqt. It was nine days after the offence before any effective steps were taken to return the articles. Theft, he said, was clearly ’proved, and all three were equally to blame. . The magistrate, after listening to pleas by counsel for suppression of the names, refused to make an order. Hearing of Low’s Case. After hearing part of the evidence. Low’s case was adjourned until tomorrow afternoon. In his statement, Low said that he had Yeeeived three rings and a necklace from accused /parcelled them up. addressed and posted them to “Mr. and Mrs. Stedman, Seatoun Heights.” from the Wellington East Post Office, at 8 p-m. on March 2. He met Johnston and Amalric again on March 18, and on being told that they had not heard anything further about the rings, said he would make inquiries at the post office. He thought the matter over, and decided that he would be better off by not inquiring. If the Stedmans did not receive the jewellery, he could not understand the position.