A PITIFUL CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3808, 8 March 1927, Page 61

A PITIFUL CASE.

LIFE’S RECORD BESMIRCHED. CHRISTCHURCH, March 4. How a widow brought up a family of nine children, struggling to make them good citizens, and how, after she had completed her life’s work, she herself fell a victim to temptation, was told at the Magistrate’s Court before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., to-day, when the woman was charged with shoplifting. She pleaded guilty to the theft of three singlets and one quilt of a total value of £1 17s 4d, the property of the Farmers’ Co-operative Association. “She is a widow with a large family,’' said the chief detective. “She has had a struggle, but there was no need for her to carry on this sort of thing; she owns her own house. She may have been tempted at the time.” “This is one of those pitiful cases for which there is no explanation,’’ said Mi Tracy, who appeared for accused.” Seventeen years ago she married a widower with eight children. Two years later she was a widow with nine children. During the intervening 15 years she has brought the children up, all being respectable members of the community. She has cared for them as if they were her own, and now when she is comfortable and in good circumstances this thing happens. It is an isolated case, and I do not think there is even a suspicion that she has been a systematic shoplifter. Therefore I make application for the suppression of her name. I would not do so otherwise.’’ Mr Mosley : ”1 am glad to hear that, Mr Tracy. Chief-Detective Lewis: “As far as we are concerned it is an isolated case. Mr Mosley : I must say that we have great difficulty in coming to a decision in these cases where we are asked to suppress names. It gives us a considerable amount of thought and difficulty, and we have tried to arrive at a system, but we find that it is impossible, and each case must be dealt with on its particular merits. It is the only way we can do it. It seems to me that there must of necessity be some variance amongst magistrates on the point. Addressing the accused he said: “Let this be a lesson to you. You are fired £2, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. If you'come before me again for a s.milar offence you will get imprisonment without the option of. a fine. Your name is suppressed.”