ALLEGED EXTENSIVE THEFTS OF DRAPERY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14001, 6 September 1907, Page 7

ALLEGED EXTENSIVE THEFTS OF DRAPERY

AN EMPLOYEE COMMITTED 1 FOB TRIAL.

iTilliaifl Patrick Harrington wos chargcc at the City Police Court yesterday, before Mt C. C. Graham, S.M., with the thoft, botweon November, 190G, and Au<mst, 1907 of a quantity of drapery and romc articles o[ glasswaio, valued at £100. the property of Allan Broad, manager of' the Mutual Stores Drapery Company (Ltd.). Aconsed, a young man of apparently 20 or '27 years of aje, wasAlofcndcd by Mr C. N. Scurr. Chid Defective Herbert, who conducted the prosecution on b2half of tlio police, briefly recited (ho main facta on whiolt evidence would bo callcd ' ' . 1 _ Allan Broad, manager of the Mutual Stores, mated that accused had been in "'."W oI too company'since December v . a ® £ hop assistant. Accused ' was originally m tho manchostcr., tmd sub sequcntly was in tho chess department, Accusods wages were at first £2 per week, anq \yero raised to £210 a. Between, 12' and 1 o olock each day half the stall employed wcio absent at lunoh, and .'accuscd would M-alono in Hi's own department during tho ■time, the other 3 were away. Witness had soen all 1 tho goods at tho Polico Station after accused's arrest, and amongst tho nrtltilM ho saw Ihoso now produced. Hb Picked out. a quantity of goods which lie tcS. "" c P l '™*® mailt cf tho firm. Wnon any of tho employees bought goods, tho goods that wore thins purchased were ratered on a eounfor form, which waschooked in the department from which tho goods wore .purchased, and a reduction of 20 per cent, was allowed. The duplicates' of all theso dockets wcro kept. Search had been made for thrco months' back, and .there was accuseds Had purchased any goods, . Tho , glosswaro and china produced were similar in pattern to that which tho lirm Etocked, ajid which wot© for giving away to ouetomcre, If tho goods woro part of goods intended to bo used to start anothor business it would be important' to have a < t Person would know fit what pnc6 io sell thorn, at. ' To. ; Kf 'Scuri-r Th« v«% of tho goods which 'witness did not identify amounted .to £70 or £80. The coupon goods were under no ffpooial control. .Mr Sell it: Have you suspected'any thiov|>>G during tho six months this man 1 haa been with you? • . ■ Witness;. There.havo boom instances previously, but not during tho six months that accused was employed. - > Furtlior examined, witness stated that ossisilints other than tho*s employed in departments TOO alien upon to,assist in such depart, 9 there, was necessity for it, Accused g work inoluded' connection witli tho manchester department, clothing departinent, and tbo children's department, and tto goods rooovercd woro Bimilar, and, in aomo cases,, identical, with those in stock in the departments named, and some of ttiem were . identical with goods belonging to other departments. To Chief Detective Herbert: Accused was Bhiitsd from tho' manchestar department owing to a misunderstanding with' the manager of that department,- aind also on account of unnk. As wintiow-dircsser he would have access to scleral departments. When accuscd was, discharged for drinking, (ho camo to witnoss and.askod.to bs taken back, and was takon baok again as ho waa a-mairied man. ; , . Horbert John Armstrong, manager of tho mandiestor , and furnishing department, Bt&wd that lug hours of Labour were y from 8 a.m. to noon, ( . and 1 to 6 p.m. Accused was employed in witness's department' in ■December laet, and remained in that dopaitmont ,np till • six weeks ago. During hncih hour accuscd waa frequently alone in wii- ■ r.esss .department, About two months ago he stated, in reply to a. question,,that his TVlfo rad Ml objsotkm to' coining lo the shop to make purchases. Witness'had'eoen tho JG articlos produced., All the Eden goods wore manohestor '• goods, and ho identified them by -tho firm's marks. Some of the marks woi'o .mado by -witness, some by RcoU3ed, and some by before flooitged employed. Sam© of the goods had tho firm's private cypher, and wore tho n i i? r^T T Stores Company fr!"-)'.Ho vaM tho,goods at £118 t0.£120. with the exception of a few lines 'thio goods wore exactly similar to those, ltopt by the firm, Ono of tho pieoes of' tracking was folded in an uriusrual manner—i,e,, in the uookfold.' It was impossible to miss from | tho stock short lengths d£ goods subli as somo of Iho S run 11 piece 3 producod. Some of tho pillowossos woro ddcntiosl with some a'l> i 3 mado U P from the pieco' stuff. All tile goods in court resembled tho stock kept by the firm. Ho Talued the whole of the goods at front £100 to £115—tint was, the goods that wero similar to thoso. of tho firm. Accused would havo 310 right, without, tho number's .sanction, to' send "cmh to his private house. If he had tho general manager's sanction, it wqs his duly to inform the manager of the"department of the root. He had not informed" witness that Oio had sent goods to his home on June 22. To Mr Scurr: Accuscd .and witness were I 111© only-persons employed in tho manchestar departmenti A boy namoA Haro occasionally served in tho departmont.. Witness had ncvoi'. previously known . anyone to fold the frooiting previously referral to in tho bookfold manner. Up 1 to six week 9 ogo acctifcd and witness woro. tho best of friends. Ho was awv.ro that, accused had advised the boy '.'.TO to roport witnoss for Lis treatment of tho hoy,- Witness had never paid that JlO would' like, to seo abciieed in gaol, . To Clu'ef Defective Herbert: Witnoss had s called the, boy an impertinent ■ young dog, °nu, 111 his (witness's) opinion, tho W was so. ' ' To Mr Scurr: If. waa usual in other eptublipiirapnts to liajid ni"icrial from tho ample .opportunity to got goods for. windowdresser for window-dressing purposes. This was not ahrays tho practice, as far. A3 witness Itnow, at tho Mutual StoTes, Accused did not dress witness's window. To Chief Dotectivo Herbert: &cured hod amplo opporluniiy to got goods for 'windowdrossing purposes without cllcck. Henrj- Sjiiller, ir. chajgo' of tho dress dc)wrtmc.lit for tho past 9ix months, 9ta.ted that • accuscd; three weokg previous to his "jrost. was emploj-ed in that department. He. identified a pieco of croam sill: as |,ho property of tho Mutual Stores Company, lw idonLifted tho stall by a slain of reel ink mado by himself when dressing tho window. The at witness's suggestion, removed it from tho winilow, and iifst tinw witness ' saw tho staff it wis. in the possession of tho police. The accuscd had never mado any purchases in witness's department. A piece of corduroy (produced) was exactly similar to in measurement arid quality to that stockcd by the firm. T]ie samo: remark applied to a piece of nun's •roiling. ITo' alro identified- some silk, and thrco pattorno of print woro exactly similar to some witness had bought for tho company -within the past six months. Somo rosecolpurod i cashmerc was oxaotly similnv lo tho 'firm's, goods. Other goods (produced) wero also similar in pattern, quality, and other' rospocts to goods kept in witness departuiont. -All tho silks, cashmeres, velveteens, etc,, had lieon examined by witnefs, and exactly similar to goods in witness 9 department. Ho waa satisfied tho poods produced wero ilia )iroi>erty of tho Anitiml Stores Company. William Ifortinior, manfigor of the men's department, recognised some sooks, singlets e!e„ as similar to stock kept in his departniont. Wiinoia Jiad riot sold the good.^.'produced to accused. , Tho singlet was '.'siiniJnr 10 ono sent ,out by tho firm's Home buyer toro'eat from.

Emmelme M. South, in charge ot tho fancy and haberdashery departments in the mutual Stores, iceognised a 'full piece ot e.astio as tho property of the companv. She recognised tho cypher mark, and also hei own handwriting, and she recognised a parcel of ooinbs ns part of a "B" sliiomont to the company. She also recognised tho cypher Juark on a parcel of whito elastic as that of tho firm's, and the writing thorcon as that of ono of tho assistants. A parcel ot pearl toad necklets produced was a line that could bo purchased in other houses in town. As a I'cneml rulo, tho company's ticket was placed in tho fame position oh the bottom of tho box ns that from which a ticket had been romovcd.i She also rccogniscd a woollen sample shawl as a traveller's sample. There was no ticket on tho shawl nor on a similar shawl (produced) to enable witness to make a definite identification. ■ She had not sold any of the goods to the accused that she could rcmombsr. Tho elastics and tho combs sho identified a.s tho property of tho Mutual Storos Company. To Mr Scurr: Accused, oil one or two occasions, had dressed the windows of wit jiess's department. Ho did so once to witness's knowledge. Accused would have little opportunity of access to witness's stock forward, but there was nothing to prevent him having acccs3 to reserve stock. Tho fctm " B " shipment was not used in other departments: it was specially in witness's department,'and indicated the season's shipment, and'was used by witness for her own information. •

Violet E. lioboi'tsluw, in cliargo o( the ladies' outfitting deportment, rccogniscd a child's bonnet by nil assistant's mark and by tlio company's cyplicr. There wore about BO ladios' silk blouses in stock about two months ago, and as a result at on examination sho fouud iliero wero six or eight ot these blouses missing. She recognised one ot tlie five hlonscs produced by a red slain on it; and others by general . appearance, as part of ft job line which she had purchased (or her department, Tlio witness also recognised several Indies' grey skirts, and three blouses as similar to she had in stock.- Sho also recognised Ipdies' nightdresses as exactly similar in trimming, etc., to those in stock in her department. Other goods produced wero similar to tlio goods in witness's department. Witness had nevor Eold any of tho goods produced to tho p<lCUSci

Jessie Robertson, employed in the ladies' outfitting department, recognised a ticket on a child's bonnok as having figures on it like thoso made by witness hersolf. The other goods were similar to those in stock, but witness could not definitely recognise any of the .'articles.

Thomo9 Hill, labourer, residing in Cargill Btreet, Dunedin, stated that he-bad known accused lor between two and three, months. Ho saw accused at his (witness's) aistor's hauso in Canong&te street, on June 22, and he thon asked witness to go to the Mutual Stores and get a prcol and tako it to jut wife. Ho told witness to go to the, store between 7 and 8 p.m., and that the parcol had been paid for by his (accused's) wife. He saw the accused at the stores between 7 and 8 p.m., and he gavo witness two parcelsone of which ho stated contained curtains for his wife and one parcol for witness himwlf. In the parcel which he gavo to witness there was ft piece of calico, v;hich he sold to °L Hamilton, in Maclaggin' street. On the previous evening accused came to witness and asked him if ho didn't think it would bo bettor for him to shut his mouth in tho ca?e. Accused was then under the influence, of .iquor, and witness threatened .to strike him, and he went, away. .Witness had previously taken a parcol frcm the STutual Stores to accused's residence, and had refused to do bo on other occasions. He suspected * accused had not com© by tho goods in a proper manner.

To Witness did not know he was receiving stolen goods, but ho had a fair idea that the first parcel was stolen, iie had no reason to suspoct that tho second parcel was stolen. The first parcel was taken to accused's residence weeks beforo the second parcel; It was not'a'fact that witness's sister lived m a house of i'l-fame; she had been beforo tho court on such a char'go, but tk charge was dismissed.

To Chief Detective Herbert: Accused was a frequent visitor at witness's sister's house during witness's absence; and witness had found him there whon he went there himself. When witness suspected for a certainty thai tho goods were not obtained honestly he rofused to carry any more parcels for accused. Defective Ward stated that when he saw accused at'the Mutual Stores ho stated that he had never sent any parcels to his house by a man named Thomas Hill. He also stated that ho had some new drapery at his house which his wife had purchased at Inglis s and tho D.I.C. sales, and-some which he had brought from Chrietclmrch—.part of the stock of a small milliner's shop which his wife kept in Ohristcluireh.. Tho goods produced in court and other goods were found packed in boxoß, and olio parcel of drapery in brown paper was lying on tile bed. The latter parcel, accused's wife stated, was a prcßont lor a friend. The piece of calico was obtained from Hamilton's second-hand shop. Accused stated that ho had obtained none of the goods from the Mutiial Stores. The house in wliioh accused lived was' a small three-roomed cottage. Detective Hunt corroborated the evidence given by Detective Ward.

Mr Scurr stated that accused would reserve his defence, and pleaded " Not guilty."Chief Detective Herbert applied for. au increase of bail,'and this by agreement wat fixed at aconeod in £150 and two sureties of £75 each. •