PETTY THEFTS.

Thames Star, Volume LXV, Issue 18241, 15 July 1931, Page 3

PETTY THEFTS.

MAORI WOMAN'S LAPSE. Many Charges Preferred. SIX MONTHS' SENTENCE. LONG LIST OF OFFENCES. The sequel to the series of petty thefts which has disturbed Thames householders was heard iu the Police Court this nioruiug, when a Maori woman uauied Moua Macdonald, alias Martha Tainui, alias Roper,, alias Harper, alias Jean Donnelly, was sentenced to three montihs' imprisonment on each of two charges of theft, the sentences to be cumulative, and was convicted and discharged on live other counts. Messrs W. Bcngard and R. H. Holmes, J.'sP., were on the Bench, and a eurious set" of circumstances arose when it was found that one of the charges referred to the theft of a bottle of powder from Mr Bongard's shop. In the hearing of this charge, Mr Bongard left the Bench, Mr Holmes' passing sentence. The■ charges comprised:— . Theft of underclothing and towel, valued at 8/-, from M. Coad on July 10; theft of mirror, cutlery, towels, a quantity of pollard and kumaras, valued at 12/-, from F. T. Franks. theft of dress material valued at 6/- from J. A. Winder; theft of hat and badge, valued at 19/-, from V. E. Smith; theft of bottle of powder, valued at 2/6, from W. Bongard; theft of pair of curtains valued at 5/- from persons unknown; theft of_ lady's handbag, valued at 7/11, from 0. A. Gillon.

Mr C. J. Garland appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty, electing to be dealt with summarily. Sergt. Macnamara said that for some considerable time past the police had received complaints of petty thieving around Thames, and inquiries made by Constables Lockie and Smith had led to accused being located, when a large number oi miscellaneous articles had been found in her possession. Some of these had been identified as stolen property and others the accused had claimed as her own, and the police had not been able to get them identified. Accused had claimed that the offences had been committed in the course of a number of drinking bouts, which might or might not be the cause of the crimes, but it was significant that some of the thefts were committed when she was quite sober. In one case she had attended early morning church and had immediately, on coming out from church, gone and stolen some property. Furthermore, she had not assisted the police in any way to clear up the thefts, and it was only when confronted with the proof of the ownership of articles that she had admitted that she had stolen them. She had a bad list of previous convictions, extending back to 1907, and had already twice been declared an habitual criminal.

For the accused, Mr Garland said she was one of the world's unfortunates who had spent years of her life in prison. Liquor was her trouble and her explanation was that though perhaps she was not drunk she was literally under the influence of liquor when the offences had been committed. It was obvious from the facts shown in her list of previous convictions that she had lost all sense of moral responsibility. She had come to this district with the idea of living down the past and making a fresh start. For nine months she had been employed upon a farm in Hikutaia, and no thefts had been committed when she was there. She had come into town two or three weeks ago and had indulged in these drinking bouts. She had been a good worker whilst on the farm and her employer was willing to take her back. Ho suggested that she be prohibited and sent back to her work.

The Court, said Mr Garland, owed a duty to the public, but it also owed a duty to the persons before it. The duty of the Court in awarding punishment Avas threefold: Punishment must be deterrent, preventive and reformative, and it was obvious in the accused's case that reformative punishment was a complete failure and that it was only preventive when she was directly under lock and key. The sending of her back to the farm would be more deterrent than anything else, and it was significant that the last magistrate who had dealt with her had realised that it was uo use sending her to prison. Sergt. Macnamara said it was not

much use prohibiting her, since she was a Maori within the meaning of the Act, and it was an offence for anyone to supply her with liquor. The Bench said that they had duly considered the plea put forward by counsel, but could not see eye leye with him. Accused had a long list extending over a long period, and as she had reached the age of 57 years it did not seem any use attempting deterrent treatment. The public must be protected from a woman who made such a nuisance of herself. Sentence would be thuce months on charges of stealing the hat, and three months on the theft of the mirror and sundries. Accused asked permission to address the Court, but was informed that it was unnecessary. However, she persisted and stated that drink had been her downfall and that she had been very foolish. If given another chance she would never appear before a Court again. The Bench said that sentence would stand, and the accused was removed. An order for the restitution of the articles identified was made.