SHOPLIFTER’S DEPREDATIONS

Evening Star, Issue 25672, 21 December 1945, Page 6

SHOPLIFTER’S DEPREDATIONS

VALUE OVER £2OO “ SYSTEMATIC AND CUNNING " GAOL FOR piRSISTEHT WOMAN OFFENDER A .woman shoplifter who amassed an extensive quantity of goods stolen over a period of nearly two years from various city stores, their total estimated shop value being £276 Os 3d, was sentenced in the Police Court to-day to imprisonment for one year by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., who described her thefts as systematic and showing considerable cunning, in that it was not until she made the mistake of sending some of the stolen articles to an auctioneering firm that her crime had been discovered by the police. The accused was May Mahs, a married woman, who had two previous convictions for shoplifting, and her remarkably diversified haul ranged from Bibles to koala bears. There were 23 separate charges, and the stolen goods included a small pile of gloves, 69 handkerchiefs, 10 tea towels,- skeins of wool, six packs of playing cards, beads, vases, four dolls, a gold locket and chain, crystalware, 24 books, pottery, seven cardigans, and silver dishes. The accused pleaded guilty. The goods were stolen between January 15, 1944, and December 14, 1945. Chief-detective T. Y. Hall, who took nearly 10 minutes to enumerate the list of the articles stolen by Mrs Mahs, said that on December 14 Detectivesergeant McD. Brown and Detective A. W. McDougall discovered some obviously stolen property in a city auction rooms. Inquiries were made and the accused’s home at 116 Leith street was visited. A considerable amount of stolen goods was discovered, and when she was first seen she attempted to burn a - handful of price tickets. She had subsequently given the police every assistance in trying to trace the ownership of the goods. The Chief Detective said that in addition to the 23 charges, there was a “ blanket ” charge to cover a large number of articles belonging to owners who had not yet identified them. Tt was obvious that the accused had been indulging in ) systematic thefts. Tt would be difficult to classify her as a kleptomaniac, as instead of keeping the goods for her own use she had been selling them. ■ “ MISER’S HOARD.-’ This was an extraordinary, and distressing case, said Mr C. J.'L. White,, who represented the accused. He described her as living in comfortable circumstances and having no reason to steal. Yet, said Mr White, the curious fact was that she was before the court on a formidable list of charges. Even a casual approach to the case showed that there was some mental abnormality apparent in her actions. For instance, he said, what would a woman want with 111 cakes of soap and a vast quantity of gloves which could not have been used by her even in a lifetime? The accused was not in the habit of selling the articles she had stolen, and had she made this a practice she would have been caught earlier. The position was that she and y her husband had decided'to clear their: large house of a large number of articles of household goods that were their personal property, and some of the’articles stolen by‘Mrs Mahs had also -been sent to the auction'rooms. The goods she had lifted from the city stores were more in the nature of a miser’s hoard than anything else, coun-1 sel submitted, and he said it was unfortunate that this was the third time she had been before the court for a similar offence. The first time was in 1932. when she had been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. On that occasion, said Mr White,. Mrs Mahs had been associated in shoplifting with another woman. In 1940 she was granted two years’ probation for an; isolated offence. The bulk of the goods in this ease had been stolon while the accused was in, an indifferent state of health, said Mr White, and lie suggested that her health bad a lot to do . with the commission of her offences. The assistance given the police by a person implicated in shoplifting was of paramount importance to the police, in that the ownership of the articles f would not be able to be proved in j many instances and a number of : charges would be almost impossible to prove. j

The modus operandi of the accused was outlined by Mr. White, who said that Mrs Mails carried out her activities mostly in the afternoons, and that the majority of the goods had been slipped. into her handbag. She had stored the goods in various places about the house, so that her husband would not be aware that she had been stealing. The husband- had been shocked beyond measure when her thefts were disclosed, as she had promised him faithfully that she would not indulge again in such depredations. Everything that had been recovered was in brand-new condition, and counsel said that Mrs Mails was in a position to pav for the few goods that had not been found. The chief detective 'had : said that Mrs Mahs was not a kleptomaniac. but counsel said that her acts conformed to those of a women whose pe'ciiliar state of health would necessitate. an operation, intended to be carried out next mouth. It was a big thing to ask that she be admitted to probation, but he asked'-that she be , not sent to nrison in view of that factor and also because she had responded to probation previously.. Dr A. S. Moody, who examined Mrs Mails on two occasions, outlined the slate of her health, and said lie was oF opinion that the accused did not possess enough mental balance to resist the temptation to steal. DETECTION DIFFICULT.'

Tho Magistrate said that the ShopLifting activities of the accused had extended over a considerable period, and she had been before the court on two previous occasions for similar offences. Shoplifting, especially when carried out by one person, was very difficult to detect. ’Mention had been made by counsel that the open display of goods provided an incentive to 6teai, Tmt the Magistrate said that this practice of city stores did not constitute a reason for thieving. He hardly thought that .kleptomania applied in this case, as she had deliberately embarked on a systematic practice of going from shop to shop-—on operation that had revealed considerable cunning. The Magistrate commented that it seemed rather strange that more effective control had not been exercised by the husband of the accused, especially in view of her past history. It -would be wrong for Mrs Mahs to be granted probation, especially in view of the fact that she had been accorded its benefits before. In sentencing, the accused to 12 months’ imprisonment, the Magistrate said lie would consider her age and her medical history. The term was fur a year's imprison men t on each of two charges, the sentences to he concurrent, and she was convicted only on the remaining charges. The Magistrate made an order for the return to tho owners of the goods that had been identified as being their property.