THEFT BY WOMAN

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 5, 6 July 1928, Page 11

THEFT BY WOMAN

SUPPRESSION REFUSED A plea of not -guilty -was entered by Mr. Perry, counsel for Eleanor Brodie, a widow, aged 55, who was charged in the Magistrate's. Cpurt -to-day with a theft of two hats, valued at £3 10s, from the shop, of Hugh Gilmer. The "accused did not appear, and counsel explained that she was ill and unable to come to Court. Outlining the facts, Chief-Detective Ward stated that on 18th May the accused and another woman went into the shop of the complainant. ; The'accused entered a showroom at the end of the shop, where' some hats were stored, ■ and was in the room for some minutes. When: she and her companion "had gone the two hats were missed. They -were afterwards found in the possession of the accused's comr panion, and she was brought before the Court and dealt with on a charge of receiving. The accused was interviewed, but as. she had broken her right arm she could not be brought to Court, and the proceedings were accordingly delayed. Acting-Detective Kobinson gave evidence that when the accused was interviewed she at first denied the theft, and also.denied the truth of her companion's statement that she was) guilty of the offence. Later, however, she said, "If I tell you all about it, please don't take me to Court as I could not stand it." She then made a : statement, which witness wrote down, and in which she admitted the theft. She made several attempts to sign the statement, but was prevented "from making a full signature by her broken arm. | Conutable Murray and two other witnesses also gave evidence. i Mr. Perry submitted that the statement [ made in such circumstances should not be allowed to weigh heavily against the accused. There was, he considered, a lack of corroboration about the police case, and the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. The defence was handicapped by the absence of the accused, otherwise it might have been possible to show that'she was"too much under the influence of liquor to" know what she was doing. Dr. H. Hardwick Smith agreed that the accused was not in a fit condition to come to Court. When witness attended her on the evening of Bth May after she had broken her arm, she was considerably under the influence of liquor. The Magistrate (Mr. E. Page, S.M.) said he had no hesitation m, convicting the accused on the evidence given. A fine of £5, in default one month's imprisonment, was imposed. An application for suppression of the accused's name was refused.