NO SUPPRESSION

Hokitika Guardian, 30 October 1928, Page 3

NO SUPPRESSION

SHOPLIFTING CASE

VALUE OF PUBLICITY,

AUCKLAND, October 26

“To supress this woman’s name would be to let her go free. She lias admitted a charge of shoplifting, which is a serious tiling. She is too old to have given way to- a sudden impulse. She should have known better. If I suppress her name from the newspapers she would not he punished at all. Publicity is the only tiling shoplifters do not like. They would pay a £SO fine rather than see their name in print. Magistrates in some cities gaol accused without even.the option of a fine.’’

This statement was made by Air F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Police Court, when he convicted and fined Elsie May Fear, married, aged forty-seven years, £lO on a charge of theft. He refused to suppress her name. Default in payment of the fine was fixed at one month’s imprisonment and an order was made for the return of the goods to the owner.

Suspected of shop-lifting, accused had been watched in a city store on Thursday afternoon, according to Chief Detective Hammond. The detective who approached her found she had stolen goods in her possession. in fining accused, the Magistrate remarked on the gravity of the offence and refused the counsel’s application for suppression of her name. “But she has a family, sir,” said counsel.

The Afagistrate: She should have thought of them before. I. might suppress the name of a slip of a’girl who steals a gaudy bit of finery, hut not the name of a mature woman, who should know better.”