SHOP-LIFTER FINED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 29 October 1928, Page 4

SHOP-LIFTER FINED

SHOULD KNOW BETTER”

(By Telegraph—Press Association)

AUCKLAND, 27th October. “To suppress this woman’s name would be to let her go free. She has admitted a charge of shoplifting which is a serious thing. She is too old to have given way to a sudden impulse. She should have known better, and if I suppress her name from the newspapers she would not be punished at all. Publicity is the only thing shoplifters do, not like. They would pay a £SO fine rather than see their names in print. Magistrates in some cities gaol accused without even the option of a fine,” said .Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Police Court when he convicted and fined Elsie May Fear, married, aged 47 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. The accused had been watched in a city store on Thursday afternoon. According to Chief-Detective Hammond, a detective who approached her found she had stolen goods in her possession. In fining the accused, the Magistrate remarked on the gravity of the offence, and refused counsel’s application for suppression of her name. “But she has a family, sir,” said counsel.

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