THEFT CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 3, 29 September 1920, Page 10

THEFT CHARGES

♦ MASTERTON CASES GIRL AND YOUNG MAN BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE 'By Tolograßh.-Special Correspondent. T?n r, u Ma s terf on, September 28, EHa Dorothea Boys (aged 17) n nd Bnp. c " 3to( ' l an ot the Masterton oarapte Booms, wero to-day brought liefo/e Mr- S. L. P. Free, S.M., on charts ol theft, Both accused appeared before Justices of the Peace last Thursday and were l'bmanded to enable tbo police to collect more evidence. The charge against Boys was that between April 1 and-Sen-tember 21 she stoU from the residence of t. W. jSI Keuzie, Lansdowne, two scams an overcoat, a skirt, underskirt, necklet set of furs, nnd a handbag containing money, the toial value of the property being J!59. Mr. T. Jordan appeared for tlm accused. Minnie M'Konzic, wife of T. W. M'Ken zie, said that prior to going to Auckland about the beginning of April she had left ill her wardrobe two scarves, an overcoat a skirt, an underskirt, and a fur liccklbt. On returning six weeks later witness missed these articles. About tho end of May, Boys, who had been in hospital, came to stay with witness. One evening accusfd asked witness if she hnd missed anything as people in the neighbourhood had complained of things being taken, vhtness did not reply to the question. Nothing further was missed until September 21, when witness had occasion to go for her purse, which she had hung in a wardrobe a few days previously. Thte pursa had disappeared, together with a set of furs and an overcoat, which had bc-en hanging in tho wardrobe. Tlio loss was reported 'to the police next day. None of the articles produced had been worn, and were in the same order as when stolen. The only things not produced w)ere tho handbag and a piece of lace. To Mr. Jordan: Witness had known accused since 6ho was a child, and they hnd always been on friendly terms. Accused, wbh frequently came to witness's place, had always bej:n found trustworthy up till Hie discovery of the theft. Witness had invited accused'to stay with her and her husband after accusetl came out of hospital in June.

Constable Phillips gave evidence as to tlifc finding of somo of, the 6tolen property in Boys's room at the rosidenco of Mr. Smith, Lansdowne. Later lie . accosted Boys and her mother in Chanel Street, and they both went with him to tho police station. While tlierjj accused admitted taking articles on two separate occasions. Shie did not admit taking the handbag and lace, of which, sho apparently knew nothing. Witness and Constable Devine accompanied accused to her room at Lansdowne, where she opened up her boxes. In them were found the furs, necklet, and two scarves. Thy skirt was found later at accused's own homo. Constable Devine gave corroborative evidence. Mr. Jordan, said that he did not propoi; to call any evidence. Accused would plead guilty to tho theft of the articles,' except tine handbag and lace, of which l sho knew nothing. He suggested that the& articles lie deleted from the charge. This was agreed to,' and tho accused was committed to the Supreme Court at Wellington for sentence, bail being allowed. Two Accusod Jointly Charged. Th» next charge was a joint one against Beys and Kupert Hatch. It referred to the theft of a lady's sports coat, blouse, collars, and 21 yards of real hand-made lace, valued at ',£ll 2s. 9d., tho property of Bing, Harris, and Co., of Wellington. Mr. Jordan appeared for Boys and Mr. 1?. R. Burridgc for Hatch.

Edgar Francis Kane, commercial traveller, employed by Bing, Harris, and Co., Wellington, snid that cR visited Masterton on August 5 and placed his samples in No. 5 sample room. H)j unpacked them with the assistance of Hatch. Witness identified a roll of lace produced in court ias belonging to Bing, Harris, and Co., and as one of the samples he had brought toi Masterton. No person had any authority to take the lace. On Sunday, August-8, witness unpacked anotlner parcel containing a sports coat. He left the room and banged tlie door behind him. On Sunday evening he returned, and, missing tho sports coat, asked Hatch if ho had taken It to show Mrs. Hatch, natch replied that he hnd not slicn the coat, but that his little boy might have, taken- it. On Monday afternoon witness missed a piece of lace. Hatch, on being questioned, said that he having seen the lace. Later Hatch pointed out some fingerprints on the window, and suggested that the thief had gained entrance that way, Hatch suggested reporting the matter to tlio police, arid eventually Constable Phillips was 'brought round, Witness did not recognise the blouse produced as one of his samples. Hatch had no authority to dispose of samples, though life sometimes assisted by taking them around to tradespeople. , , , To Mr. Jordan: Witness had known Hatch for twelve years, and had always found him (trustworthy. Hatch had _ n key to the sample room, and had permission to tafee thero his wife or anyone having business to do there. Constable Phillips gave evidence as to being called to the sample rooms bj Hatch and Kane.'He examined the fingerprints, but they were useless for cvidenc# as they were smearnd.' He did not think anyone could have entered by the window, and ho tolt) Hatch so, Hatcli said that the only people in tho rooms on Sunday wijre his wife and boy. All traca of' tlxe missing articles wa.s lost until the 22nd instant, when the articles were found by witness, when searching for other things among Boys's belongings. On being questioned, Boys alleged that Hatch had given her the lace, and also two blouse*, one of which she produced. Hatch identified the laco, but denied giving it to Boys whilst shj. was in the sample room* with him. Hatch later admitted that Boys was in the snmple rooms on Sunday, August 8. Hatch admitted that he gave Boys blouses at various times. Constable Devine gave corroborativb Jordan submitted that on this charge the. only direct ovidence against Boys was in reference to tbo lace ; He askid that the othet articles mentioned should bo struck out The Mouse pro duced had not been identified by Kane. Jfr. Burridge submitted that on the evidence there was no charge for Hatch to answer. Hatch was arrested and placed in the cell, and Boys had been interviewed before Hatch could speak to hti. Kane had admitted that he had not .shut tho door properly, and anyone might have gone in. The Magistrate agfced that tbi> cass was a weak one except in regard to the Mr Biirridgo asked whether, if mideiifo was available regarding the acaial. dato of the taking of. the lace, the lower Court could considor it in order to sav* Supreme Court proceedings. The said it was evident that there had been some relations between the two accused. Strangers did not givo girls blouses without a ljeason. _ Boys made a statement at one sta,ge whicli was evidently tbio truth. Later she contradict°(Both accused were committed to the Supreme Court at Wellington for trial, bail beini allowed in each case.