WOMAN FOUND GUILTY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 901, 22 August 1910, Page 3

WOMAN FOUND GUILTY.

CHARGE OF THEFT. TWELVE MONTHS' IMPRISON- , . MENT. Pound guilty 011 Thursday last of stealing a sealskin muff and receiving a pair of binoculars, Catherine Moore was brought before his Honour, Mr. Justice Chapman oil Saturday morning for sentence. Mr. Wilford advanced on behalf of his client that sho had not added to her offence by going into tlio box and giving false evidence. The only defence taken had been that tlio articles in question ivero not identified. Charged with six offences, tile prisoner had boon' acquitted of four and found guilty of only two. Altlfough the penalty for recoiving was severe, it might bo regarded as a subsidiary offence. His Honour: I don't know that you can say that. When _ evidence shows recent possession, it is an open question what inference may be drawn. Continuing, Mr. .Wilford said tlie prisoner was<an old woman standing before, his Honour, he believed, convicted for the first time. He noticed a number of suggestions in the polico report submitted that if she had never been convicted she ought to ho regarded as a first offender. It was very easy for a policeman to say, "I believe this or that" about, a prisoner. His Honour: I should think it very probable that the case indicates systematic shop-lifting. If.the ease had been tried in.France or Italy, said Mr. Wilford, where it was tho rule to institute a searching examination as to motives, this woman ■would probably have been described as a kleotoinaniac. The" Crown Prosecutor remarked that if his learned friend had had timo to peruse the police report ho would have seen, that his client had been convicted before, and that she was ' known in Sydney and Melbourne as. a systematic shop-lifter. ... , ■ Mr. Wilford: Is this evidence/ His Honour: We do not ask for evidence that would suffice for a conviction. . Mr. Wilford: If this procedure isadopted and Mr. Ostler refers to what somebody has said-: — His Honour: Not'what somebody has said, 'but:official reports for the protection of this community and other communities.; Mr. Ostler went on to state that detective offices in a number of Australian States, to which photographs of the prisoner had been sent, reported her identity, with a woman who had passed at various times under ■ the names of Noakes, Gerard, Reakes, and Otto. In, 1897 she was convicted at Sydney on a charge of thelt. - At that time £500 worth of. silk was found in hor possession, and as a. result 111110 charges of .larceflj* wero _ preferred against her, but, owing to difficulty in identification of the goods, she was acquitted. 111 both Melbourne and Adelaide she was known as ' a shoplifter.- When arrested in Wellington she had £200 worth of goods in .lier possession, and 1 110 doubt theso would be tho subject of . further charges. Lastly, she was believed to bo identical witlv, a woman who, according to, tlio police report, was locently arrested in Sydney 011 a charge of stealing a sewing-, machine, and had broken her . hail, escaping to New Zealand. . Mr. Wilford: Your Honour, if all this be true, how much more strength there must be in iny suggestion that ■„wo .must, be particularly careful .to guard 'against being carried away 111 decisions by one-sided statements. His Honour: You may rely. 011 my being careful. ■■'. Counsel: Yes; I am" sure-'of that. His Honour, in passing sentence, said the police report was very unfavourable to the: prisoner, and only tended to confirm an impression that anyone would form from the chiugco of which she had been found guilty. The mulf stolen was not the kind 01. thing that a poor woman steals when in want, of 'clothing or something of that sort. Had it been a shawl or rug lie would have thought less of it,' butt her theft of a valuable article suggested that she was a habitual criminal. Her theft of tho binoculars strengthened the impression, for ifc. suggested • that she was in the habit of; stealing things she did not want at all. He did not base the sentence lie was about to inflict on the police report. He regarded that as only confirmatory of the charges proved against the prisoner. She would be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. . Mr. Ostler asked that an order be made directing tho return of the goqds to, their owners, Mr. Wilford pointed- out that with tho exception of the muff and binoculars they had not been identified. Mr. Ostler: Mr. Adams swore that that fur was exactly similar to one he had missed from his shop. Thero can be no doubt as to its ownership. Mr. Wilford: Mr. Adams declined to swear that tho fur had ever been in his 8 lii's Honour' remarked that he could direct that the goods be left meantime in the' hands of tho police.- If prisoner proffered any explanation as to how she came by them it would be considered. ' Mr. Wilford: An-explanation by the prisoner is already in Court. She says silo obtained them in England. His Honour: If sho makes an affidavit to that effect she may find herself in further trouble. .. •• ■ Mr. Wilford suggested that his client would be quite '.safe, as the, testimony of two witnesses would bo required to disprove her claim. His Honour: It is not merely a question of whether - the prisoner is ,111 a position to make such an affidavit with impunity. Thero are other things to be considered. His Honour finally stated that he would hold over his determination as to tlie disposal of tho goods. ( NOT. CUILTY. . Tho only criminal case tried in the Supreme Court on Saturday was that. 111 which a young man named George Brown was charged with tho commission of a sexual offence, at Wellington, on Julv 13,' 1910. .. : Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted for the Crown,'and Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for the accused. The hearing of the case concluded at about 2.45 p.m., when tlio jury, after an absence of five minutes, returned a verdict of "not guilty." Tho prisoner was thereupon discharged, and tho Court adjourned until 11; a.m. to-day,