“HOME WITH THE MILK”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23364, 2 December 1937, Page 2

“HOME WITH THE MILK”

AFTERMATH OF PARTY BUTTER STOLEN FROM DELIVERY VAN WOMAN AND ESCORT IN COURT Entirely contradictory accounts as to how 10 pounds of butter from a milk delivery van came to be in their possession on their return at 5 a.m. from a party that was described by the police as “lively” were given by a married woman and her male escort, who appeared before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the City Police Court yesterday morning. The belated home-goers were Albert Ensor Thompson, waterside worker, and Esther Octavia Tait, who were charged with stealing on November 16 10 pounds of butter valued at 12s Id, the property of the Taieri and Peninsula Milk Supply Company. After listening to the two stories, the magistrate convicted the male accused of theft and the woman of receiving stolen goods. The charge against Mrs Tait was taken first, the accused, who was represented by Mr J. G. Warrington, pleading not guilty, whereas Thompson pleaded guilty. The facts of the case, Chief Detective Young said, were that at 5.20 on the morning of November 16, Norton, a salesman employed by the Taieri and Peninsula Milk Supply Company, was delivering milk in Filleul street. There was a parcel of 101 b of butter in a box at the rear of the van and this was visible to anyone passing along the street. Norton left the van to deliver milk, and, on his return, he saw Mrs Tait going along the street with Thompson, who was carrying a bulky parcel under his coat. On November 23 Constable McDougall interviewed Mrs Tait, who in her statement said that she was at a party until about 5 a.m. On the way home with Thompson they had passed a milk delivery van. A few moments later Thompson went back and returned with a parcel, which, he said, he had found in the gutter. She had kept the butter, used some of it, and given a few pounds away. Thompson was also seen and he made a statement that was contradictory to that furnished by Mrs Tait. In this he admitted that he had stolen the butter. The accused Tait had received all the benefit from the theft. He would leave it to the court to decide whether the charge against Mrs Tait should' be amended to one of receiving stolen goods. Evidence on the lines of the chief detective’s statement was given by Herbert William Norton, the salesman concerned, and by Constable McDougall. Mr Warrington submitted that it was hardly a case of theft on Mrs Tait’s part. She had given a full explanation of the affair and there was no evidence against her, except of receiving the butter. No woman with a guilty knowledge would give such a free, open statement to the police nor would she have spoken to the milkman when she passed him. He asked that the charge be reduced to one of receiving stolen goods. The magistrate reduced the charge accordingly. Continuing the defence, Mr Warrington said that Mrs Tait’s explanation was that she had been to a party? She had been taken ill and had gone to bed, but, in case her children might worry, she had got up shortly before 5 o’clock to go home. Thompson had accompanied her until, at the rise in Filleul street, she had told him to return as she would be “ all right ” He had then turned back, but a few moments later he returned carrying a parcel, which he said he had picked up in the gutter, "and asked permission to accompany her home to see what was in it.

“ I understand from statements that Thompson has made recently,” Mr Warrington added, “ that he is prepared to substantiate Mrs Tait’s explanation. I will now call Thompson to give evidence.” But the new witness, so far from substantiating his fellow accused’s account of the affair, gave an entirely different account. In the course of his evidence to a somewhat surprised counsel, he said that as they passed the milk van they noticed the parcel of butter, and Mrs Tait remarked “ Wouldn’t I like some of that!” Witness had then removed it from the van. As they were passing the milkman further up the street Mrs Tait had told witness to put the parcel under his coat. They had then gone to Mrs Tait’s house to see what was in the parcel. From the witness box Mrs Tait held firmly to her account of the affair, and described Thomson’s statement as absolutely untrue. Chief Detective Young: Was not the party you were at a very lively one?

Witness; Certainly not. Chief Detective Young; Are you sure you were not ill on account of consuming too much drink? Witness: No.

The magistrate said that he could not believe the female accused’s story, and she would be convicted on the charge of receiving the stolen butter.

Chief Detective Young said that the position was clearly that both the accused had been at a party where liquor was consumed. At the suggestion of the woman. Thompson had foolishly taken the butter from the van. He had not been before the court before and was a waterside worker and married. The accused Tait had also not come under the notice of the police before.

Mr Warrington said that Mrs Tait had been severely punished already over the affair, which had caused domestic discord and which also might result in a broken home for her. For the children’s sake and for the accused’s own sake, he asked th.; court to be as lenient and as merciful to her as possible. The magistrate convicted the male accused of theft and fined him £3, in default seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour. The woman was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within the next six months, a condition being that restitution of the butter to the value of 12s Id be made.