PRISON FOR HEIRESS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20456, 8 November 1934, Page 12

PRISON FOR HEIRESS.

Appeal Against Sentence Fails. FALSE PRETENCES. (Special to the “ Star.”) LONDON', September 19. An appeal against a prison sentence by Esmee Marie Dorothy Sibley, aged 18 years, who, it was stated, will receive, when she is 21, £40.000 now held in trust for her, was dismissed at London Sessions. The girl was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in the second division by Mr Hay Halkett at Westminster Police Court on August 3, for obtaining by false pretences a yard of tweed, a bottle of gin, cut flowers, two pairs of hose, a set of linen mats, and two bottles of perfume, and attempting to obtain by false pretences two bottles of sherry. Mr J. F. Eastwood, for the Crown, said that the case was adjourned several times, and prominent counsel represented the accused at the Police Court. The magistrate had referred to the case as an “ Alice in Wonderland ” case. “ On the face of it, she. has money,” said Mr Eastwood. “It is presumably an indication of means that she arrived at the court in an expensive motor-car. The prosecution obtained an order for 100 guineas costs, but it is extremely unlikely that we shall get any costs at all.” . Mr Laurence Vine, for the girl, said that an application had been made for a payment to the prosecution out of money which she had in the High Court. “ I fail to see,” he added, 44 what grievance there is as to costs.” There were seven counts involving £3 ISs 9d, added Mr Vine. The girl earned money as a dancing instructress. “ She brought an and was awarded damages, which were lodged in the High Court because she is an infant. There is a sum of £40,000 now held by the Public Trustee, and she will receive it when she is 21. She says she never had any intention to defraud. The Chairman, Sir Percival Clarke, said that the magistrates thought that she had no course open to her at the police court except to plead guilty. 44 We are satisfied,” added Sir Percival, 44 that there has been a long course of deliberate fraud, for which no excuse has been offered to us. '> e do not think the magistrate’s decision was wrong, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.” -