FEMININE ATTIRE

Southland Times, Issue 22487, 23 January 1935, Page 7

FEMININE ATTIRE

DISPLAY IN COURT.

SHOPLIFTING CHARGES HEARD.

(Per United Press Association.) Christchurch, January 22,

Many articles of feminine attire, including coats and dresses, also a number of handbags and hat boxes, were displayed in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. These were exhibits in a case in which Ella Marion Mather, aged 33, a domestic, faced 27 charges of theft from shops. It is. alleged the offences covered a period between January 22, 1933, and December 4 last. The value of the goods involved was £268 16/-. The accused pleaded guilty to nine charges and not guilty to eighteen. The articles exhibited in the ■ Court included two bicycles, two fur coats, hats, dresses, stockings, shoes and many other articles of men’s, womens and children’s clothing. The charges involved goods of a total value of £268 16/101. To eight charges the accused pleaded guilty and to others not guilty. Twenty of the 27 charges were heard to-day. . The accused was convicted on lb charges and four were dismissed. She was sentenced to imprisonment for 14 days on the first charge, sentence on the others being deferred until the other charges were heard to-morrow. In evidence the accused said that it was her custom to go to nearly every race meeting, sometimes as far away as Wellington. She had inside information about the horses and her profits from race-betting must have amounted at least to £2OO a year. She had not banked the money because it would have affected her widow’s pension. The Magistrate: Won t you have to refund to the Government the money you have had as a widow’s pension? The accused: No. It says on the paper that the money earned must be put down, but not money won at the races. I might have lost it again at the other meetings. The Magistrate: Earnings consist of money received from any source whatever. You, a woman with two children and receiving the widow’s pension, could afford two fur coats.

Evidence was given by shopkeepers and their employees identifying the goods. In most cases identification was easy, but especially in respect to the smaller articles. The witnesses could not be positive always that the goods had not been sold. In all such cases the charges were dismissed.