ALLEGED THEFT AND RECEIVING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2978, 12 April 1911, Page 5

ALLEGED THEFT AND RECEIVING.

MOTHER AND DAUGHTER BEFORE THE COURT.

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

In the City Police Court on the 3rd, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Frances Elizabeth Bell was charged with, between the years 1908 and 1910, stealing 10 Royal Worcester vases, one Royal Worcester sugar dish, one Royal Worcester cream dish, 30 Royal Worcester Doulton vases. 17 pieces of Royal Doulton tea-ware, 18 pieces of Foley chinaware, and 60 pieces of cut glassware, of the total value of £67 6s Id, the property of the D.I.C.—Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared to defend. Chief Detective Herbert stated that between the dates set out in the information the accused was employed as assistant saleswoman in the crookery department of the D.1.C., and had access to the goods stocked in the department; She left there in March, 1910, and a little' while ago information was received by Detective Thomson which led to his taking possession of the goods mentioned in the information and a large quantity of other goods as well. He subsequently arrested the accused on this charge, and after her arrest she made a signed statement admitting stealing all the goods mentioned in the information. Detective Thomson said that on March 20 he took possession of a quantity of Royal Doulton ware and cut glassware at accused’s house in Queen street. She then stated that she had 'brought all the property with her from Tasmania eight years ago. The following day she went to the detective office, , and, in the presence of Detective Hunt and witness, she picked out all the property mentioned in the information. She then made a statement to Detective Mitchell, which she signed, and which witness read over to her in the presence of the Chief Detective and Detectives Hunt and Mitchell. She pointed out all the articles mentioned in the information as the property she said she had stolen from the D.I.C. while employed there. Witness then charged her with the present offence. Next morning she asked witness if she could leave something out of the statement which she had made to Detective Mitchell. Witness thereupon typed another statement, which she signed. In the second statement, which was practically a duplicate of the first, accused said that towards the end of 1908 she broke a Doulton vase and took the pieces home, and that after that, at various times, she took home pieces of Doulton and cut glassware. Sometimes she wra'pped them up and sent them home, and sometimes took them home in her underclothing. Evidence was given by George Crow, manager of the D.1.C., that accused was employed in the crockery department from October,' 1907, till March, 1910, when she was discharged. In answer to Mr Hanlon, witness stated that he had held a similar class of goods to those in court in stock, but ho would not swear that any of the goods had ever belonged to the D.I.C. Frances Alice Button, in charge of the crockery and china department at the D.I.C. for the last five years, said that accused was formerly an assistant in her department. She stocked goods similar to those, which she had inspected at the detective office. She could not positively swear to them but at the same time she was » convinced they were the property of the D.I.C. Two pin trays, which were among the goods, were marked in her own handwriting. In answer to Mr Hanlon, she said she could identify the two pin trays and some teaware as articles that had been stocked in her department. She thought she could identify one of the articles by a mark on it, but she would not swear that it had not been sold. She had made up a list of goods, which she valued at £67 6s Id. The designs of some of the Doulton ware were quite new, and she did not think that accused could have got them eight years ago. The pin trays might also have been sold. Evidence was also given by Detective Mitchell. Accused reserved her defence, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. The same accused was then charged with stealing softgoods, valued at £34 10s, the property of Elizabeth C. Dreaver. Chief Detective Herbert stated that he was not ready with the evidence, and would ask for a remand for a week. A remand was granted till Monday next. Another charge was then preferred against accused of stealing softgoods, valued at £27, the property of the D.I.C, This case was also remanded fo. a week. _ On Mr Hanlon asking for bail. ’ e Cn - t Detective pointed out that in view of the further charge*; which had been made against accused the bail ought now to bo more substantia! than before. On the charge on which the accused had been committed for trial, bail was fixed iti accused own recognisance of £2OO and two

sureties of £IOO each. On each of the two other charges bail was allowed on accused on recognisance of £IOO. THE DAUGHTER CHARGED.

Frances Elizabeth Beatrice Bell was charged with, between January 1 and February 28 last, receiving from Colin David M‘Lean certain goods to the total value of £2O, well knowing such goods to be stolon. Mr Hanlon appeared to defend. Detective Thomson stated that on the evening of March 20, in 'company with Detective Lilley, he went to Mrs Bell’s house and took possession of a quantity of new clothing claimed by accused as her property. The next day accused went to the detective office and made a statement (produced) to Detective Mitchell. In the statement accused said that she was 24 years of age, and employed as a saleswoman at the City Boot Palace. She had known Colin M‘Dcan for about a year. A few months ago he started working at Mrs Dreaver’s, where her mother was employed. In January, 1911, M‘Lea.n asked her to lend him 10s. She did so, and shortly afterwards he told her he could not repay it, and asked her to accept a piece of cloth instead. She took the cloth, being under the impression that he had bought it. She went to the shop, and saw M‘Lean there, and he told her to buy from him as he would let her have things cheap. On three occasions she went to M‘Loan’s department and selected articles, which he wrapped up. and which she took away. She did not pay for them, and knew they were stolen. On other occasions M‘Lcan took articles up to her home. She knew they were stolen from Mrs Dreaver’s.

j Continuing, witness? stated that accused pointed out the property mentioned in the information as being the property which she had received from M'l/e.an. .He had not heard accused ask the chief detective why it was entered in the charge book that she knew the property to be stolen, i Detective Mitchell said that on March 21 accused made a statement which she signed. This statement was then read over to accused in the presence of the chief detective, and she replied that it was quite true, and that she knew the articles were stolen by M'Lean. She then picked out from amongst other property several of the articles mentioned in the information. He did not tell her that it was merely a list of the things and as soon as she signed j “that it was all right” she could go back to her work. After that she picked out : the goods, and was then arrested. He | would contradict a statement that she got ! the first intimation that the goods were ! known to have been stolen when she saw i the watchhouse-keeper entering the fact in the book. ! Elizabeth Dreaver said she knew Colin j David M'Lean, who had been an assistant iln the dress department in her shop. The 1 class of goods shown in court was stocked iby her. She had often seen the accused in 1 her shop, talking to M'Lean. She vameu I the goods at £2O 14s.

j Colin David. M'Lean said he was emI ployed as assistant in the last witness’s j establishment for about five months up till | March, 1911. He had known the accused personally for more than six months. She 1 was employed at the City Boot Palace. | He first met her at her another’s house, j When he first went to Dreaver’s accused | often came into the shop and purchased I different things. One night in the bei ginning of February, while he was at ! accused’s house in King street, she made I some remarks about getting married very i soon, and that she would need a good I many things. . She detailed a list of things Ito him, which he wrote down. The value i of the goods on the list would come to ; nearly £l4 or £ls. She asked what it ' would cost her, saying she did not want to pay very much. She asked if £4 whuld latter were most necessary, and if the birth rate was to be kent up the women could ; not go on without domestic help. If they wanted to restrict production ,* no doubt they would please the Freetrader, because the mow that was imported into the country the better he liked it. Of the boys who came out here only one out of 50 was 19 I years of age. Ho thought he was well j within th© mark in saying that at least 35 'of them were under 16. They were taken, to mixed farms, whore a home was practically made for them. He did not think for one moment that 50 lads of this sort , could disturb the labour market. He could | quite understand the danger of what they were urging if this policy was continued to a large extent. Very few of the SedgI wick boys were getting less than 10s a ' week, and they were bound to the satisfaci tion of the Labour Department. A report I was received from them every month, and j their wages were paid to the Labour DeI partmient and held in trust for them until 1 they reached the age of 21 years. He had I any amount of letters from Farmers’ i Unions urging him to go on with the policy, but he did not intend to do any- ( thing further in this direction until he' had I 12 months’ experience of the first ship‘ment of boys. That he had told Mr Sedgwick, and that he intended to recommend

to the Cabinet. At the end of 12 months they would see how the boys shaped. He did not think the deputation need 1 ■be necessarily alarmed about any great immigration policy, but at the same time they must remember that New Zealand would have to increase its population somehow if they were to carry increased loans. Mr Reyling: Why not, then, establish a fair award for the farming industry? The Hon. Mr Millar: I. have said in the House that the Court of Arbitration should have exactly the same power in such cases. Mr Young: We are generally convinced that if an award existed in this particular industry there would be no cry for assisted labour aIC all.

The Hon. Mr Millar: You go into the statistics and see the prospects of future boy and girl labour, and! you will find a shortage, and inevitably we will have to face another difficulty.

Mr Young; They are going to Australia. The Hon. Mr Millar: The world’s history shows that labour always goes where there is prosperity. It happened in the case of New Zealand.

Mr Noot: You would not require imported immigrants if you gave fair conditions of employment. There are any amount of girls in factories now, and you will not get imported girls there because their sisters will not encourage them to go there after their own experience. The Hon. Mr Millar: At the present time I have, got applications from factory employers asking me to bring out 1200 girls, with a guarantee of three years employ: ment, but we have declined We say that if they.care to bring out labour they should do so themselves. These are industries that don’t export. Aftqr discussing the matter further with the deputation, the Minister said he would bring its representations before the Cabinet.