BREAKING AND ENTERING.

Colonist, Volume LXII, Issue 15259, 22 December 1919, Page 2 (Supplement)

BREAKING AND ENTERING.

The Grand Jury having returned a true bill, DorotTiy Hazel Miller, aged 16 years, was charged that she did on August 24th, 1919, at Nelson, by. day, break and enter the shop of J, Wood and Sons, Ltd., Bridge Street, with intent to commit a crime—to wit, theft. Mr C. 11. Fell (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Crown and Mr W. C. Harley for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The jury comprised Messrs S. P. Lang (foreman) P. N. Newport, A. T. Robson, T. Milroy, T. W. Hargreaves, L. M. Jamieson, H. T. Harman, H. Seaton, N. M. Burbridge, G. V. Dee, U. E. Webley, A. B. Inglis. Mr Fell briefly opened the case and called evidence. Ernest Alfred Wood stated that he went to their shop in Bridge street at 1 p.m. on Sunday, August 24th last. Accused lived in a side street at the back of the shop. On entering the shop^ he heard, the sound of someone running, and looking out the back door, he saw accused getting over a. dividing fence. He followed and saw accused on the other side of the fence. He called to her, "Now I've caught you." She denied having been in the shop, and then ran home. A door at the back of the shop was open. -When the shop was closed on Saturday all doors and windows were fastened. He went to accused's place and again charged her in the presence of her grandmother, 'but she denied having been, in the shop. He then went for the police. Constable Russell, came, and accused again denied having been in the shop. Constable Russell inspected the premises to find where entrance could have, been effected, and found that a window in the men's dressing room had been tampered with, a board which was covering a broken pane of glass having been broken away. The window catch had been opened. They then brought accused and her grandmother to the shop and the former was interviewed by the constable. In the shop after the interview, accused acknowledged that she had been in the shop. In reply to witness accused said she did not know what she had been after.

Herbert H. Russell, plain clothes constable, stated that on 24th August he accompanied the previous witness to his shop and .to the residence of accused. After denying that she had been in the shop, accused said that she never took anything, having heard someone at the front door. She showed him where she had got in and the door she went out. She'then admitted that she-was in the shop when she heard the previous witness come in the front door. In addressing the jury Mr Harley said it, was not denied that accused was hi the shop, but it must be proved that she was there with intent to commit a crime. He submitted that she broke into the shop out of sheer curiosity, combined with a certain amount of mischief. The opportunity of getting into a big shoj) was irresistible. He pointed out the seriousness of the charge, especially for a young girl, and said that unless the jury were satisfied that she Tjroke into the shop with intent to steal they must find her not guilty. In summing up His Honour said it was unfortunate that a young girl of 16 years should be before the Court. Although young it was their duty, and his duty, to deal with the evidence and for the jury to decide the case on the evidence a's it appeared to. them. Because she was young, it would not be proper for the fury to say she was not guilty. Youth and other circumstances were always taken into consideration by the judge in imposing any sentence or othervite dealing with a per so a It was one of those cases where 'the judge's discretion would do what the jury ought not to do—that was to let the accused off because she was young. It was not enied that the girl got in by the window. If the door and window had been open, the accused might have been tempted to go into the shop, but in this case a board protecting the window was broken away in order to grain admittance. After a short retirement the • jury brought, in a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of accused's youth. His Honour deferred the passing of sentence until this morning. December 4th. The girl Dorothy Hazel Miller, who was found guilty at the Supreme Court on Tuesday en a charge of breaking and entering, came up for sentence before Mr Justice Hosking yesterday morning. His Honour, after admonishing the accused, ordered her to come up for sentence when called upon, and instructed that she bo under tho control of the Education Department, unless the department should see fit to place her in charge of a relative in Australia, who had offered to provide her with a home