GAOL FOR SHOPLIFTER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26033, 22 December 1945, Page 9

GAOL FOR SHOPLIFTER

A WOMAN SENTENCED TWO YEARS OF THIEVING Details of an extraordinary series < of shoplifting offences over a period of almost two years were given before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the City Police Court yesterday, when May Mahs, a domestic, aged 54, pleaded guilty to 23 charges involving goods to the total value of £276 0s 3d. She was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. The "charges, which covered a period from January 15, 1944, to December 14, 1945. specified an extensive range of goods—jewellery, handbags, pottery, gloves, handkerchiefs, soap, shoes and slippers, dolls and toys, wool, books, linen, crystal ware, and a variety of other articles. In addition to the 23 charges, there was one “blanket” charge covering articles the ownership of which had not been established. All the thefts were from shops in the city. Systematic Thefts Chief Detective T. Y. Hall said that obviously the accused had gone round the shops systematically. Her offences were disclosed when a detective found some valuable property, which obviously had been stolen, in an auctioneer's premises. She had sent the articles in for sale, and. although at first she attempted to burn a pile of price tickets when the police called on her, she later gave every assistance in establishing the ownership of the extensive collection of goods. It might be argued that she was a kleptomaniac, but that was inconsistent with her action in attempting to sell some of the goods. She had been before the court twice before on shoplifting charges, but it seemed that those warnings had had little effect. Mr C. J. L. White, who appeared for Mahs, said that the case was an extraordinary and most distressing one. The accused was happily married and had a good home, and there should have been no temptation for her to steal. Most of the thefts were without any motive. She was not in the habit of selling the goods, and the isolated instance occurred when she sent some articles with other goods from her home for sale. “ Most of the articles were of no earthly use to her,” he said. “It was something like a miser’s hoard.” “The thefts were all committed m the afternoon,” Mr White said, “and they were mostly from shops which cater for that sort of thing by displaying goods openly where they can be taken easily. She took them away in her handbag.” The accused was first before the court in 1932, when she was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, and in 1940 she was admitted to probation for a similar offence. This remarkable series began about two years agb. Mr White attributed it to the accused’s physical and mental condition. It was not a case of a kleptomaniac, he said, as much as one of a very sick woman, and the climax of her thefts coincided with the climax of her health troubles. Counsel said that there'was an eloquent medical history, and he added that the accused had soon to face a severe operation. She had responded to probation once, and he thought she would do so again. Evidence of the accused’s medical history and present state of health was given by Dr A. S. Moody. He considered that she did not have enough mental balance to be able to resist the temptation to steal. Magistrate’s Comment “ You have pleaded guilty to a series of 23 charges involving systematic shoplifting over a long period,” the magistrate said. “You were before the court 13 years ago and five years ago, and it has been stated that you responded to probation on the second occasion, but after hearing the details of these offences, the court must consider whether you succumbed again to an irresistible impulse.” Shoplifting was an offence that was difficult to detect, particularly when it was carried out by a single individual, the magistrate added. The fact that many shops displayed goods in a 'fashion that, might be an incentive to steal could not be put forward as justification. He was of the opinion that kleptomania was not the explanation of these thefts. The accused must have exercised extreme cunning, and it was not. until some of the goods were found in an auction room that she came under suspicion. It seemed strange, the magistrate said, that in view of her previous offences, more effective control had not been kept over the accused. It would be wrong for the court to grant probation a second time, but in sentencing her to imprisonment for 12 months on two charges, he took into consideration her age and medical history. ■ -