ARREST IN CITY STORE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 886, 1 February 1930, Page 1

ARREST IN CITY STORE

Man and Woman in the Dock CHARGED AS SHOPLIFTERS SUSPICIONS aroused in an assistant by the behaviour of a man and 'woman in a large city store led to their arrest and appearance in the Police Court this morning on two charges of theft. Both accused were remanded on bail until Thursday and Chief-Detective Hammond added that there would be other charges. The value of the goods taken was alleged to be. £25 or £3O.

The two charges; were both in reared of thefts from City stores yes terday. From one store the two accused were alleged to have stolen three frocks, three pairs of stockings, three boxes of powder, a bottle of perfume. seven cakes of soap, two fans, a nail-brush, a powder puff and two rlgarette holders of a total value of 7s 6d. In the store where they were arrested the two accused were alleged to have stolen a pair of women's pyjamas valued at 29s 6d. The woman, who was fashionably dressed, was described as married and aged 32. She wore a neat costume and a close-fitting hat. A fur necklet was about her neck, and she wore ear-rings. The man was described as a cleaner, aged 34. Mr. Sullivan appeared for the woman. Chief-Detective Hammond asked for a remand, remarking that there would be further charges. Goods valued at US2S or £3O had been taken. “The male accused is a boarder at the woman’s house,” continued the chief detective. “Yesterday they were out stealing and drinking together. I would sooner give the man bail than the woman. A week In custody to get the drink out of her would do her no harm.”

Applying tor bail for the woman, counsel pointed out that she was already on bail, having been released last evening. She was a married woman living in her own home, and her husband would go bail for her. "I formally ask for ball for the man,

too,” added Mr. Sullivan. ‘‘l am not appearing for him, but he has asked me to ask for bail.” It was the first time the woman accused had ever been before the court, Mr. Sullivan said. Major Gordon was prepared to take care of the woman, but that would mean that she would have to go to the Salvation Army Homo. Counsel suggested that the man should get another solicitor. “I have a meritorious defence for the woman, but it makes it difficult for me to defend the man,” he said. The chief detective pointed out that every article stolen was for a woman’s use. The majority of the goods stolen had been found in drawers in the woman’s house. A remand was made until Thursday, and bail was fixed at one surety of £SO for each accused. Mi-. Sullivan asked for suppression of the woman’s name, urging that publication w-ould mean hardship for the husband, who was employed in the City at a place where there were 1,200 employees. The chief detective had spoken of drink and had prejudiced the accused, which made suppression in the meantime more desirable. There was a good defence for the woman. The Chief-Detective: The defence is that the man takes the blame. He has been very straightforward about it. Mr. Sullivan objected to the chiefdetective’s remark, but Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., agreed to suppress the name.