OPENING A POSTAL PACKET

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 32, 7 February 1914, Page 2

OPENING A POSTAL PACKET

AN UNLAWFUL ACT. Elsie Reynolds, a young married woman, uppoarcd on bail in the Supremo Court yebterday afternoon,' before His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, charged with ; (1) Opening a postal packet contrary to her duty ; (2) wilful delaying of tho same ; and (3) obtaining tho banio from postal officer by means of false pretences. Th accused pleaded not guilty to all three counts, and wag defended' by Mr. J. J. M'Grath. Tho allegations of the prosecution, re* presented by Mr. P. S. K. Macatsey, were- that the informant, 'Mtas L. Galloway, and her married sister, Mre. Ruth* erford, came to Wellington from Sydney on the 19th September last. They knew the accused in Sydney, blio having amved in Wellington four or five weeks* previously. Subsequently the accused and Mi&s Gallowaj stayed at tho same house. Misb Galloway expected a lettel 1 from a male friend in Sydney. Of this fact tho accused, it was alleged, was aware, and on the 22nd October blig forsed i !Miss Galloway's signature to an authority addressed to the post office. The accused, it wa>s contended, received a registered letter, and subsequently told Miss Galloway that there was no lettel 1 for her. Subsequently in the evening of the same day, after the informant had mado a fruitless enquiry at the G.P.0., the accused admttted having received a letter belonging to her. Asked why she had not given it up before, tho accused, it was. stated, remarked : "I had a reason." On being further questioned by Miss Galloway, the accused said that the reason was her own, business. Detective Andrews said that on being arrested tho accused had made the following statement : "I did open it. I had a reason. I did not think it was so serious. They have been friends of mine, so-called, for tlu-eo years." The accused in her evidence said thal> Miss Galloway and her sister were away at work each day_ until half-past five. Id was her practice to get letters for all three. The lii3t week Miss Galloway asked her to call at the post office for her letters, and she (accused) took that as a general request to call for her letters. On each occasion she signed the necessary authority in the name either of Mrs. Rutherford or Miss Galloway. She took tho letter homo, etca.med it open, nnd had it oprn for Mrs. Rutherford lo road. This \vns only us requested previously by Mis-. "Rutherford. When, however. Jlis. Uut her ford leavntllwt thorc wo b morn 5 y enclosed she would not read tho letter, which was thol'c* upon re-sealed and given to Muss Galloway later in tho day. Mr. M'Gratl; (hen addressed the jury on the piisonor'ts behalf. Jlib Honour, in summing up, said that \vhil» ho did not cuggost any criminal intent on tho part of the accused, ov that s-ho meant k> do the informant any haim, he eotissideied that slip virtually lUood convicted by hoi own admission. It would bo asking the jury to viola'rthetr oaths to find the woman nob guilty. They could recommend h«r tf> mercy, and their lecommendatipn would doubtless be taken into consideration. The jury returned a verdict of guilty mi nil three counts, bub %vith "no^ the criminal intent whatever." "That means," commented his Honour, "that you don't think she was doing wrong. Well, I think that Jb a right veidict, and I am not going to pass any sentence. You (the prisoner) have done a very foolish thing, and I hope that you will not do it again. I shall eimply say that you will come up for sentence when called upon. That means that you will not be called upon. Of course the law had lo be vindicated, nnd this the jury has done. ' Tho pi issuer Mas thereupon difii . chargpdi