CHARGE OF THEFT.

North Otago Times, Volume CIV, Issue 13667, 8 September 1916, Page 4

CHARGE OF THEFT.

YOUNG WOMAN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. In the Magistrate's Court" on Wednesday, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.,'lsabelle Wilson was charged with having, on or about,' August 18th, comniitcd the theft of a gold ring valued at £lO 10/-, the property of .May Greer, Railway Hotel, Kurow. Accused desired to be tried by jury, Mr Hjorring appeared, for accused, Mr Ongley watched the case on behalf of Mr Greer, and Senior-Sergeant Stagpoole prosecuted. Senior-Sergeant. Stagpoole, in outlining the case, said accused was a servant at the-ltnilway Hotel,, Ivurow, and during Mrs Greer's absence last month entered a. bedroom through a window and took the ring. When Mrs Greer arrived home accused saiil she knew no-i thing about, the ring, and then admitted it. On the night of the Ist i list., accused. left her employment in a car, taking the ling with her.

May Groer, wife of the proprietor of Ihe Railway Hotel, Kurow, sai.l that defendant was in her employ' for |wo years and nine months, and left last Saturday, morning.' .-Witness, remembered leaving home, on the 18th of last month'for Oiimaru, and their went to Tesehcinakcrs. Witness returned to Kurow on August 2!)lh, On leaving home she locked her door, bul would not swear thai alio locked the window. Wit.ness left her effects about her room, the engagement ring being left with some jewellory in a jewel case, On retuni'ng on the 2S)lh witness did. not notic? that the ring was missing, 'but on the 31st she cliscoyered her loss, She then, called accused and inquired about the ring, At first she denied having taken the riiig,. Before witness spoke about, the ri j accused told witness that she liad entcfed the room to obtain some dressmaking material. On witness interrogating accused she admitted having taken the ring for the purpose of making the waitress believe she ' was married, Witness . naturally thought accusedwould put. the ring back, The ring had been missing once before, and was found in the possession of accused, The ring produced ill Court was the ring concerned, ,It was valued i at- ten guineas. Witness had not seen tho ring until now after missing it. On Friday night the girls at the hotel went to a dance at Otiake. Accused • went also. ■Witness did not see accused again, whom she missed on Saturday morning, Hei' room was minus her effects. Accused did not givo notice. On two occasions previously accused spoke of leaving.

Cross-examined by Mr Hjorriiig; During her service over tlip two years and nine.months accused was servant and waitress. Witness did not make a friend of' her nor any of her staff. Accused looked after.the.children whilst, witness was away for more tljan a w;eek.., Witness swore that, she did not have tlie ring when a certain two ladies were at the hotel.; Witness did not ltnow that the accused had shown a ring to any young ladies, although one of the other,"witnesses would say that it was ■shown to her. Accused wore the ring at a:dance at Kurow when witness was in,Oaniarn, Witness denied having said that accused was engaged to a runholder. Witness denied that she told accused to display the ring to two young ladies. Witness remembered employing t.wo sisters, Miss Hardwick and Mrs Jlarrop. Accused did not go to Wellington with witness, If accused said witness told someone she went to Wellington with accusod.witness Would contradict it. Witness did not lei) anyone that accused was engaged 'to'a ? young man in. Wellington. Witness did not tell the accused to .produce the ring before Miss Hardwick and Mrs Jlarrop, It' would be untrue 1 to say that tile ac; ensed got, the ring to feliow at the request of witness. Witness was never present when Mrs Ilarrop asked Accused fo wear the, ring'at a daneei- Witness remembered.,the.l)og Trials ; ball .atHakataramea, Witness remembered .lending accused a pendant, but iiot ; the J'iugi ' Witness, never lent, her ring at' the Otiake dance later. The Thursday 'rtftbr- witness' return from Oainaru on the 29th the two other girls mentioned: their intention of leaving. They were not leaving now, Accused tried to poison every girl against the place, and witness was a little sore at that. Witness was not'upset on returning to find that the two girls intended to go. Witness complained, however, about the lack of attention on the part of the girls during her absence. Witness had had a fair, number of girls since accused's ad' vent, at ,the bottom, of most of'the girls', leaving, but witness, did not know why.' she did .not remove the -cause by dismissing accused.. The ring was missed at noon on Thursday. The ring was in accused's box and witness told her to put it back, Witness thought she would put it back as she had done when she had; taken it five months ago. She did not do so, however, Ou the iirst occasion when witness missed the ring witness (old amnis-' ed that Mr Greer would be angry if the ring: was takcii from witness' box, Wiliiess' did not lake any nlitice of the lirst. Ilieft when the ring was replaced, Jf I lie accused hail put the ring back on Ihc second occasion or had'even sent the ring back nothing would have been said. Witness thought that accused loft at three o 'clock in the morning because she had stolen the ring. Although accused took the, ring without witness' knowledge, when .witness did know she did not think accused had taken the, ring to keep! Accused had been trusted in her employ. Witness had placed no confidence with accused. Witness never loft the safe keys with accused, but on one occasion with the porter. On two occasions witness asked accused to stay with her when she threatened to leave. Accused would have had ample opportunity to take other'jcwollcry, 'Accused looked after the children with Mr Greer's assistance when witness was absent, Witness did not find a note in accused 'a room after she left. As soon as I lie discovery was made that the ring was not rcplacod tlie police were com-' niuiiicatod with. Witness was not angry at accused's departure, Witness did not ask accused why she had not asked her husband for a" key for the room. Witness never said she was-sorry to lose accused. Accused was not. paid iier wagos regularly because she was nsnallv overdrawn. Witness did not try to withdraw the case.

Harrop, 'Railway Hotel, Knrow, said she knew accused, She remembered plaintiff leaving for town.' Accused showed witness, the ring with the remark that it was her engagement ring,' Witness went to the ball at Oti:ike Inst Friday with accused. Witness returned between two and three next morning. Accused (lid not return with, witness. Witness had not seen her until to-day, Witness did not know accused was leaving, Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring: Witness never saw a ring of plaintiff's. Witness, saw accused's engagement ring (Hiring, plaintiff's absence. Slid "had stfpii the ring before ,on accused's hand; at a dance in Kurow. Witness could not swear it was the same ring, Accused I old witness that she went for a holiday with plaintiff, Witness could not say whether .plaintiff was present at that lime or not. Witness was not antagonislic to accused, Witness went to the dance at Otiake with accused, Miss C'assidy, and two gentlemen whom she did jjot know. Witness did not know

who was in the car on the-return journey. Witness and eame home, 'but could not say whether accused was in the car or not. Witness then swore accused was not in /the car. Witness' room was-next to that of accused, Witness did not/sec accused before retiring. Witness,was informed at breakfast that accused. had "gone, Witness did not help accused to, get her boxes from the hotel. ' Witness did not see accused place a letter oh the. table before leaving the hotel. Mr Hjorring asked was it not a" fact that witness was leaving her employ. Witness said it was the first she had heard of it, and said suqsequcnt'ly I hat. she had given notice to leave. D.ora Lcwin Cassidy remembered plaintiff's absence in Oamar.u recently, Accused showed witness a ring and said she was engaged to be married. Witness could not swear to the ring. Witness remembered goiug to the dance at Otiake with the previous witness, accused, aiid some others. They returned between 2 and 3 a.m. Accused eame home in the same car. Accused got out of the ear at the same time as witness. Witness did not see accused till to-day. Witness did not know accused was leaving. Witness did uot&now she had left till breakfast,

Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring: Accused was in the ear. Witness did not see accused in the hotel after leaving Ihe car, Witness had given; notice to leave. She knew that I lie previous witness had given not ice lo leave. Witness was still adhering to her intention to leave, Witness did-not carry a box downslairs for accused,

At I his stage the evidence adduced elicited the fact that the witness, under cross-examination,-had heard the evidence of previous witnesses from outside the door, Mr Jljorring intimated that in a similar ease the Magistrate had refused lo accept such evidence. The Magistrate said that lie must accept the evidence in this >jaso, as the witness was perfectly candid, and it was palpable that the eavesdropping was not deliberate. ' Constable Palmer/stationed at Oamaru, said that he interviewed accused at Papakaio oil September 4th, Witness mentioned his •mission. Accused said she had the ring. It was in her box. Accused said plaintiff lent.it to her and she intended returning it that day. The ring was produced, aiid accused was informed of the matter being in the hands of the police. She said she never had any intention of keeping the ring. 4 Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring: Acreused did not know who witness was. Witness did not tell accused who he was up till then.

, Mr Hjorring, in his opening address, said the evidence as it stood produced nothing to show that accused had taken the ring for her 'own benefit. The onlyreason the information was laid was' becauso the girl had left. The accused had intended to return .-.the ring. p . The Magistrate said the surreptitious nature of accused's ..departure had yet to be explained. '

' Accused pleaded "not/guilty," and was committed for trial to tlie Supreme /Court to be held next week, bail being fixed, £2O in her own recognisance l and 'one surety, of £2O.