THE CRACKED BELLS.

NZ Truth, Issue 309, 27 May 1911, Page 5

THE CRACKED BELLS.

Thieving Mother and Dishonest Daughters.

The Dunedin D.I.C. and Dreaver Depredations.

The Scene m Court— Mrs Bell and Detective Mitchell— " You are a Gentleman, and I will tell you the Truth !"-^Practically no Defence— Confessed Culprits Tell Their Tales— They Thieved for Mother Bell — Pleas of Guilty — Lawyer Hanlon Could Offer Nothing m Mitigation — An Unfavorable Police Report— Mother Bell Gaoled— The Daughters Given Probation,

The trial of the Bells, mother and two daughters, on charges of thefts from th© D.I.C. and Dreaver's m Holy Dunedin started with all due ceremony at the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Sim, on Wednesday of last week. The tibial attracts ed a lot of Dunedin's "sassiety," and the curious and the. unwashed thronged the gallery and , the pit.

The first item on the programime waa the trial, of Mrs Bell, onpharges 1 , of theft of about forty articles of Doulton ware, cut-glass, and oddments and lingerie from the D.I.C. The lady appeared m court dressed m

THE SOMBRE, SOBER DRESS of a draper's assistant. She wore a large black hat, turned up on the left side and ornamented with a most expensive Osprey spray. She was quite cool and composed, and after hearing Sheriff Stubb read the indictment she seated herself m the dock and gazed calmly around.

Lawyer Hanlon announced that tha lady would plead not guilty, and that he wag .' prepared to uphold the lady's innocence.

An extra table was carried into the court . by the sweating, overworked "Demons," and dainty expensive products of the Doulton foundry were temptingly set out for the gaze of the jury. Also, the drapery and dainty articles of lingerie overflowed from the extra table on to, the barristers' table, whereon the many-guinea-niarked brief is wont to rest, and the dainty laces and frouHErous caused the leather top to blush and feel quite youthful, m spite of its burden of statutes and ink-wells. George Crow, manager of the D.1.C. ; gave evidence that accused used to work for his firm for THE HUGE SALARY OF 25s PER WEEK. He repeated his evidence given m the lower court and previously published by ' 'Truth. ' ' -, To Mr Hani on : His firm had exactly the same 1 articles as those produced. Could not swear that the goods were stolen from the D.I.C. Detective Thomson repeated his evidence. To Lawyer Hanlon: He went to the accused's house to search for goods alleged to have been stolen by her daughter. He took . the 'goods away, but not the lady, as he had no charge against her then. Next day at the police station she made a statement to him, and a further one to Detective Mitchell m another room. s Frances Alice Button, head of the crockery department, D.I.C, gave evidence as to the identity of certain vases and cups. To Lawyer Hanlon : She had given Mrs Bell several presents. She always gave her assistants presents at Christmas, but she could not afford to give them ; Doulton ware. Several of the articles could be bought at other shops than the D.I.C.

Mabel Hawthorne, who runs the lingerie and frou-frou department at the D.I.C, repeated her evidence about the • beautiful mysterious "pretties." To Lawyer Hanlon : "Similar goods could be bought m other shops m Dunedin. Some of the goods were of exactly the same description as those m the D.I.C.

Evidence was also given by George Henry Lewis, m charge, of the furniture department, and John William. White, m charge of the dress department, and Francis Joseph Wood,, silk department. .

Detective Mitchell said that he met Mrs Bell as she left the detective office on March 21. He asked her w,hat the trouble was. and she said it was over some Doulton ware. He then asked if she had told the truth, and she said she had not, so he advised her to tell it. She then said

"YOU ARE A GENTLEMAN, and I will tell you the truth." She then made a statement which he took down. Chief Detective Herbert said he witnessed the signing of the statements. Elizabeth Creelman Dreaver ideh* tified a coat as her pr6perty. Detective Hunt al»o gave evidence. Lawyer Hanlon asked "to be allowed till .next morning to consider the calling of evidence for the defence. He could not say whether he would call it or not at this stage, as he dlid not know its value.

His Honor allowed an adjournment till the following morning.

On the second day of the Bell trial, "sassiety" fell ,over itself to attend the proceedings, and the court looked a , cross between a mothers' meeting and a church bazaar. There were ladies, old and young, m the gallery, the back and the body of the court and the overflow reached right up to the press box.

Mrs Frances Elizabeth Bell appeared once more m the dock clad m her sober black, and the osprey spray proudly floated over the proceedings. r

Lawyer Hanlon announced that he did not purpose to call any evidence for the defence- He addressed the jury at great length, and contended that the two charges were laid over a long term of years. In the first charge from 1908-1.0, and m the second from 1907-11. There was not a tittle of evidence before the court that the Roods had been stolen. All the articles were of an every day variety. {Vhich could h,\ purchased by anyone ovpr the counter. 1 n no instrinn' had any of the articles been po.-il ively identified by any of the wlmscs. lUiss Button had identified a Ho;dt'.<n cup by eight little ticks on the bottom

of it. He asked them if they would like to be convicted through ticks ON THE BOTTOM OF A CTJP. In the case of a Doulton vase, Miss - Button had also identified, through a ticket placed on the side of the vase. The ticket had no marks on it and it would be dangerous to convict on evidence like that. Other witnesses had stated that the articles of clothing, etc., were of a similar class to those sold by the firm, and that was all that they could say. The. confession made to Detective Mitchell was altogether too thin. He suggested that the statements admitting the thefts were obtained under compulsion.

His Honor sumaned up against the accused and threw dust on Lawyer Hanlon's suggestion about the confessions. He drew attention to the fact that accused was getting only 25s per week, and yet she was found m possession of nearly £70 worth of Doulton ware. After a retirement of 35 minutes the jury brought m a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. - Accused was remanded for sentence. ANOTHER CHARGE. The last trial of THE FAIR FRANCES ELIZABETH BELL started late on Thursday afternoon, when she was charged with stealing a number of beautiful creations, silks, opera cloaks, and other things too humorous to mention, valued at £49 9 S 3d, the property of Mrs ;E. C. Dreaver. The lady denied the impeachment, and was defended by Lawyer Hanlon. Detective Thomson again gave evidence as to finding the "pretties" m accused's house m Queen-street, and accused stating that she had brought some from Tasmania eight years ago, bought others at Dreaver's and some from Colin McLean. Detective Hunt gave corroborative evidence. Detective Mitchell again told of the confession made to him by the lady. Elizabeth Creelman Dreaver identified sundry of the gay garments and things as having belonged to her. James Gunning Stevens, head of the dress department at Dreaver's, recognised sundry silks and laces which were identical with goods stocked m his department. At this stage (5.30 p.m.)i the case was adjourned till the. followSng morning. On Friday morning the fashionable and curious people of both sexes trooped into the Supreme Court to see the dramatic finish of the Bell's— theis last chime, m fact. Mrs Bell appeared m the dock clad as before and looked pale and worried, but her wonderful nerve never deserted her. even when she was sentenced. Mr Fraser, K.C., called further evidence, which Lawyer Hanlon did not cross-examine. Esther Henrietta Tanner, m charge •of the baby linen department 'at Dreaver's, recognised a dainty infant robe as being part of her stock, and repeated the evidence given by her m x the lower court. Colin McLean, who got two years' reformative treatment, was BROUGHT ACROSS FROM THE GAOL m charge of a warder. He identified a piece of crash linen, which he said he bad never sold to^Mrs Bell, but had let her have on approval.

Mrs Dreaver, re-called, said that the. sales dockets produced by Lawyer Hanlon did not apply to sales to employees, as the discount of 20 per cent, would be shown.

Charles W. Allington, shop assistant at Penrose's, and formerly at Dreaver's, denied selling sundry pieces of dress, material to accused.

John Jucson Illingworth, another .aristocratic assistant at „ Dreaver's, also denied selling the lady sundry laces: This closed the case for the Orownu. His Honor : Do you wish to call any evidence, Mr Hanlon ? Mr Hanlon : Noi, your Honor. I think the accused has some intimation to make. The lady then withdrew her plea of 'not guilty and pleaded guilty. Sentence was deferred-. THE DAUGHTERS IN THE DOCK.

The next case on the Bell programme wasi the trial of the daughter Francqs Elizabeth Beatrice Bell on charges of stealing and receiving sundry tray cloths and pretty unmentionable things of the bloomer variety, of the value of £20 is, the property of Mrs Dreaver. Accused pleaded guilty to the charge of receiving only. Mi- Eraser, X.0., said he would accept that plea. Prisoner was remanded for sentence.

Evelyn Jane Bell, the second daughter^ then took her turn and was charged with stealing and receiving a black and white silk stole, the property of Mrs Dreaver. valued at 21s.

Evelyn Jane pleaded guilty to receiving, and the Crown prosecutor accepted the plea. J

• She was further charged with stealing and receiving goods valued at £19 10s 9d, tho property of the D.T.C. EVELYN AC ATM PLEADED GUILTY to receiving only, and Mr Fraser once more gracefully accepted. THE SENTENCES. His Honor suggested that the | cases might be disponed of now if ! the probation officer's reports were

ready. Gaoler Scanlon said he had only; the one referring to Frances Elizabeth Beatrice Bell. His Honor decided to go on. The mother, Frances Elizabeth Bell, was then brought up for sentence. She was quite cool and collected, and m- reply to the usual question, said nothing.

Lawyer Hanlon, on the lady's behalf, said he expected the lady to say a few words. What she was going to say was that on pleading guilty she w^as under the . impression that unless she could be shown to have stolen all the articles m the indictment, she was not guilty. He had explained to her that so long as it was proved that some of the articles were stolen she was guilty, therefore she had pleaded guilty. It could , have been shown that some of the goods belonged to her. Some were presents and some were bought, and she felt misgivings about pleading guilty to the theft of these. It must be admitted that the thefts were extensive ones, and it was hard to say anything m mitigation. Although she was working m the D.I.C. for a small wage, she was not always m that position. When she came to Dunedin she had over J&2OOQJ, and went into a little business, and either lost the money m it or squandered it m buying expensive articles, which she had the money to buy but could not afford. He COULD NOT OFFER ANYTHING TN MITIGATION. : The , Crown prosecutor . then gave the police report. Aniongst other things uncomplimentary to the lady it mentioned, that m 1909 she ;liad run a 4 hash-mill m King-street, . .and her boarders were mostly aristocrats working m soft-goods houses. Amongst them was a man called John Watt Wilson, employed at A.. and yr. Inglis's m the carpet department.' He was arrested oorh r two charges of theft, and got a month for each on March 16, 1909, and! it was discovered that parcels of the stolen goods were sent to the lady's house, addressed to Mrs Bell, or "Mrs Dunn." It was discovered that no "Mrs. Dunn" lived there, and Mrs Bell could not tell the police what became \ of the parcels. She had got McLean into Dreaver's shoPf, and he stole articles by arrangement with her." McLean stated that s(he had found fault with him when she knew he was stealing for Beatrice, and pointed out to him that, as she had got him the job, he should only steal, ■for her. Tho opinion of the polico was that the thefts were more extensive,, and that she had originated a systematic scheme involving members of the family.

His Honor, after pointing ■ but that she had betrayed her tru^t m the D.I.C. 'and Dreaver's, handed the lady two 'years' "hard," and three years* reformative treatment, to commence on, the expiry of the "hard."

Frances Elizabeth Beatrice then came up for her little lot.

Lawyer Hanlon asked for clemency on account of the prisoner's age and her home environment. His Honor, would naturally hesitate to send a young girl to gaol. Perhaps reformative treatment would be the be^t thing, but he understood there was NO REFORMATORY FOR FEMALES. The. prohibition officer's report was that Beatrice had been employed m the City Boot Palace for, five, .years, and her manager said she was a good saleswoman. Nothing previous was known against her. ' His Honor : Call the other ac-i cuse. Evelyn Jane was then placed beside her sister. ' Lawyer Hanlon said his remarks applied to this accused also. Mr Fraser then said that when Evelyn -was interviewed by Detective Ward over the Wilson thefts she first stated the property was not m the house, and then said that she had burned it when she knew it was stolen. His Honor then ordered Evelyn ! two years' reformative treatment, and admitted Beatrice to probation for two years, as the probation officer had recommended it. Two wardresses then escorted the young women out, and the curtain fell on the Bell case. "Sassiety"' left the court then.