SHOPLIFTER’S PLANT

Taranaki Daily News, 30 March 1933, Page 6

SHOPLIFTER’S PLANT

STOLEN GOODS DISCOVERED. Charged with having been in the possession of six silk; dresses, jumpers, hats, scarves and other articles suspected of having been stolen, May Meigh, a married woman, aged 39 years, appeared before the Melbourne Police Court recently. A constable stated that with another constable he visited accused’s house. Accused, when informed of the purpose of their visit, said they were welcome to make a search and need not produce a warrant, although the police had brought the authorising document. A constable told accused that the police had received information that goods suspected of hav-

ing been stolen were concealed on th* premises. She’ .denied it. On making investigation witness found hidden behind a wardrobe in one bedroom a cupboard let into the walk It was necessary to lift the wardrobe away to expose the door. In the cupboard, which- , accused told them was kept locked and not used, they found a large quantity oi£'-' women’s wearing apparel of expensive quality and other articles. Questioned re?/ garding the dresses, accused stated sh* purchased remnants of material at different places and had had them mad* into dresses. Witness told accused that she had better tell the truth. She replied, “Yes, J will. I stole the dresses in the citjr.d was drunk at the time.” Witness replied, “I think you probably made many trip* in the city to secure such a large collection. I suspect these goods are the proceeds of shoplifting.” . Accused, in evidence, said the police co ■ arrival questioned her regarding a wireless set, and she produced a receipt for it. She had placed her dresses in the cupboard behind the wardrobe because she had feared they would be stolen. Thieves had visited her house during the previous month, and had stolen between £4O and £5O worth of goods. She had bought all the dresses found in the cupboard at various times in the city. At the time the police questioned her she . was screaming and hysterical, and did not know what she was saying. They had “taken her off her feet” She had not stolen any of the goods. After the Bench had pronounced her guilty, accused admitted that in March, 1931, she was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment ‘on a charge of larceny; A sentence of two months’ imprisonmeat was passed.