LOST DOG

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 143, 19 June 1931, Page 8

LOST DOG

TAKEN OFF CHAIN

CANINE NURSE CHARGED

FRAUD ESTABLISHED

Unusual circumstances surrounding the disappearance of a valuable fox terrier

from a private residence at Karori and its subsequent location at the house of Miss Christmas in Newtown. wore biought to light at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Mabel Harvey (who trades under the name of Miss Christmas) and Martha Stevenson were jointly charged with obtaining £2 from Victor Ernest Lareomb by false pretences.

On 27th February, said Sub-Inspector Ward, Mr. Lareomb, the owner of the dog, went out ana left the animal chained up. When he returned at night the dog was missing, although the collar was on tho chain, and was still fastened. An advertisement was placed in the "Evening Post" tho following day offering a reward for the recovery of the dog, but no reply was received. A second advertisement was placed in "The Post" on 2nd March, again offering a reward of £3. • That night Mr. Lareomb received a telephone message from Mrs. Harvey, and as a result of their conversation he went round to her house to see a dog which answered to the description he had given. He identified the dog as his own, and Mrs. Harvey told him that Mrs. Stevenson had found it near the Basin Reserve. The dog was in a very rough state, and Mr. Lareomb, %vho had certain suspicions, left the dog to be cleaned. He also paid over £2 to Mrs. Stevenson as a reward."

The following day Mr. Larcomb called back at Mrs. Harvey's with a constable, and she admitted that she had shared the reward with Mrs. Stevenson. The matter was left as it was until some information was received from a taxi driver, who said ho had driven the dog and a woman from the vicinity in which the dog was stolen to Mrs. Harvey's home.

When she was interviewed again Mrs. Harvey said she was a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She had heard that the dog had been ill-treated, so she went and took it away. Mrs. Stevenson was also interviewed, and admitted that she had not found the dog near the Basin Reserve.

In evidence, Mrs. Larcomb said she had procured the dog from some people named Sniythe when they went to England. The animal had always been well looked after while it had been in her possession.

Mr. Larcomb said that when he first went to see Mrs. Harvey' he told her h. was not satisfied about the circumstances of its disappearance, and that he was not prepared to offer the S3 reward. He was prepared, however, to give £2. Mrs. Harvey told him that Mrs. Stevenson had found.the dog on a Saturday afternoon, and that it had come into her possession that night. When he -.vent to pay the £2 to Mrs. Stevenson he also asked her when she found the dog, and she said she had got it on Sunday—the day after Mm Harvey said she had obtained it.

The next day witness went to Mrs. Stevenson's with a constable and told hex1 he believed that the dog had been stolen. Mrs. Stevenson repeated the statement that she had found the dog, and slammed the door in their faces. They then went to Mrs. Harvey, and sho again said that she had received the dog from Mrs. Stevenson.

Detective . Harding said he interviewed Mrs. Stevenson on 13th June, and she said that she had already told her story, and that she had found the dog at the Basin Eeserve, and that as far as she was concerned the matter was closed. k When witness told Mrs. Harvey she was suspected of having taken the dog away she said that it was quite true. She had taken it because she had heard the Larcomb's had been knocking it about. She said that she took the dog home in order to teach the Larcombs a lesson. After that Mrs. Stevenson said that to oblige Mrs. Harvey she told her she would say she had found the dog. In her evidence Mrs. Harvey said that she tended the dog when it was owned by the Smythes. Before she went away Mrs. Smythe, who was very fond of the dog, asked her .to "keep an eye on it." Sub-Inspector Ward: "You would say you are very fond of animals?" Mrs. Harvey: "I think them infinitely nicer than human beings." Continuing her evidence, Mrs. Harvey said that when §he went up to the Larcomb's house she found the dog's kennel facing the wind, and out of kindness she released it from its chain. Two women who were in the house next door saw her do that. The dog followed her down the road. She tried to get it to go back, but when it followed her as far as tho tram stop she called a taxi and told the driver, quite openly, to take her to Miss Christmas 's. Sub-Inspector Ward: "What right had you to take'the dog away?"—"No legal right, but a' moral right. I simply saw red when I saw him tied up like that." Mrs. Harvey, in answer to her counsel (Mr. Hurley) said that the reward did not come" into tho matter as far as she was concerned. Sho was not in need of funds, as she had been earning between" £30 and £"40 per month;.; Sub-Inspector Ward: "Do you remember telling a detective that ever since your husband has been out of work you have hardly ever had enough to buy a pair of stockings?" —"If I did .he is not a gentleman to repeat it." "Did you say that?"—"l don't.remember." • . The Rev. Mr. Kooko was then called to testify as to the good character of Mrs. Harvey. Counsel for Mrs. Harvey submitted that the facts did not disclose any offence under tho Act under which she was charged. The evidence, he said, wenj; to show that the intention of the defendant was to teach the Larcombs a lesson. That was not a false pretence. Tho Magistrate (Mr. E. Page): "Do you really suggest that that was the reason for which tho dog was taken?" Mr. Hurley: "I do submit that there was no questiou of reward ineutionod by tho defendant when she rang up Mr. Larcomb. Sho offered to take the dog back. ..." , ' . Mr. Page: "If it wns her real desire to teach these people a lesson, would it not have been natural to get a constable or other officer to go with her?" "She is a. member of the S.P.C.A. Had anybody been at the house she would have spoken to them. She is a woman who is somewhat excitable, and would fed the. impulse to protect the animal."

Counsel submitted that the Magistrate should view the case as trivial and dismiss the charge.

Mr. Page said that he found it difficult to think that the defendant's sole reason for taking the dog away was that she wanted to teach the Larcombs a lesson. There was quite a suggestion that she wanted the dog for some purpose; what that purpose was, was not quito clear. "The fact that she carried out fraud is abundantly clear," continued the Magistrate. "It is clear that an offence has been established against both defendants."

The Magistrate inflicted a fine of £5 on Mrs. Harvey, and convicted Mrs. Stevenson (who did not appear), and ordered her to come up for sentence if called upon ■within twelve months. He ordered that Mrs. Stevenson should repay the £2 to Mr. Larcomb.