SUPPRESSION OF WOMAN’S NAME IS REFUSED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17915, 3 August 1926, Page 13

SUPPRESSION OF WOMAN’S NAME IS REFUSED.

CHARGE OF SHOPLIFTING IS ADJOURNED. Per Prj^Jp^sociation. AUCKLAND, August 2. An application for suppression of the name of Elizabeth Clark, married, aged thirty-one (Mr Cahill), charged with four counts of shoplifting, was refused by Mr J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Police Court. The charges related to articles of clothing and toilet requisites, the property of Milne and Choyce, Ltd.' , f Mr Cahill asked for a remand until Friday, which was granted. Bail was fixed at £IOO. Mr Cahill requested suppression of the name, stating accused was married, and her husband would probably lose his employment if his employers learned of the charges against his wife. Chief-Detective Cummings: This woman went about shoplifting with about £6O in her possession. Surely your Worship will not suppress her name ? Mr Cahill said that if accused’s name were published, the punishment would fall on her husband. Publication of her name would not convey anything to other shopkeepers in the city, and would not serve any useful purpose. The Magistrate: Oh, that excuse would be urged in every case. Mr Cummings said that the employers of accused’s husband were sympathetic in their treatment, of employees, and he did not think they would dismiss him. The Magistrate said that shoplifting had become so common that, a rule had b*6n made that offenders’ names could not be suppressed. The alleged offences extended over a period of about two iponths. The application could not be granted. A remand until next Monday was granted in the. case of Leonie M’Mahon, aged twenty-three, charged with stealing a navy blue georgette gown, valued at £l9 10s 6d, the property of Ren dells. Ltd. Bail was fixed at £SO.