A SERIES OF THEFTS

Evening Star, Issue 19803, 29 February 1928, Page 5

A SERIES OF THEFTS

MAN AND WIFE CHARGED IMPRISONMENT FOR MALE ACCUSE!! Ronald Bertie Mohcr and his wife* Ethel Jane Mohcr, figured largely in the Police Court this morning in answer to two charges of theft alleged to have been committed jointly owing to peculiar conditions under which each tried to lay evidence against tho other. In the first place, they were charged with stealing, on February 14, a quantity of cutlery, valued at £2, Irom the house of Charles Samuel Hunt; and on February 15 they were stated to have stolen from William Henry Armstrong a fur, valued at £3 17s Cd. Further, tho male accused was charged with stealing a quantity of goods worth £3 2s 7d from Dorothy Tosh,

Before the charges were heard Ethel Jane Mohcr submitted an application for a separation and maintenance order against her husband, who was defended in this case bv Mr Cook.

Plaintiff said that they had been married since October 4, and her husband had failed to support her. He had also been guilty of cruelty to her; he had a very violent temper, and she was afraid to live with him.

To Mr Cook • Tier husband had been out of work for some time since they came to Dunedin.

The Magistrate; How much maintenance will you require ?' Plaintiff : Fifteen shillings n week. The separation and maintenance order was granted, the sum to be 15s a week in the meantime. In each of the theft charges both accused pleaded not guilty. In respect to the first charge of theft Charles Samuel Hunt, in giving evidence, said_ that ho engaged Mohcr to do some painting in his home. He supplied him with material, and he himself and his wile went away up Central. When they returned they secured back from Mrs Tosh the goods which had been appropriated. There were other things missing, but tho Mohers were not charged with that. Annie Dorothy Tosh said she had handed over tho cutlery to Hunt. She got it from Mohor, who said it had been taken by his wife from Hunt’s house. Ho asked what ho should do about it. As far ns witness knewMxs Mohcr did not know wlioro Hunt lived.Constable George Taylor said ho spoke to Mrs Moher this morning about the cutlery. Each blamed the other for taking it. Mrs Moher said she did not know where Hunt lived. ,- William Henry Armstrong, in giving evidence on the fur charge, saiduio did f not know cither of the accused until the other day, when the male Recused came into his shop and asked if ho had missed anything. Witness replied that ho had missed a fur and a frocks Accused said his wile had taken _ a maintenance order out against him while he was doing a night in gaol for a stealing offence which his wife had committed. He said that if he wont to 43 Jackson street ho could see his wife with the fur in her possession, or else ho could sec it any night on tho female accused along George street. Accvised said his wife had stolen tho fur from his shop. Constable Taylor said he received tho fur from Mrs Mohcr. She had said that her husband camo homo with it one night in his pocket. Moher, in regard to the fur. stated that ho came homo one day from work and found the article lying on the bed along with a little square box. His wife said she had got it from a shop in George street, where it had been lying on a chair mst inside the door. In answer to the statement that ho had hit her, he replied that he did so because she came borne drunk. Accused said that at Hunt’s house there was a little window open at the top. When he finished cleaning ho prepared to do tho painting, and had difficulty in finding the paint itself. Ho went inside to look for it, but could not see it there. Ho locked the window up again, and ultimately found the stuff out in tho garage. Tho next day he told his wife where ho was working, and she camo down to see the place on tho pica that she wanted to look inside. Ho opened the window, went through with her, and took her out again. Tho next day sho came again and said she would like to got some things, but ho told her there was no chance of getting anything there. Later she brought back spoons and other articles. She always was a thief, but he had tried to help her. Jn answer to a question from tho magistrate, he stated that he was paid £2 7s the previous day by his employers. He had no money in tho houso. Ho always gave it to his wife. In dealing with the fur episode, tho female accused stated that her husband had come back one day with the fur sticking out of his pocket. He said a man named “Charlie” had found it, : and he did not think anyone would claim it.

The Magistrate ‘ said vhoro was na question which accused stole the cut* lory, and in the case of the fur it seemed to be just one person’s word against tbc other. While not saying that the female accused did take tho fur, it was an article which made an appeal to a woman. The goods would bo returned.

The Chief Detective:: “Your Wor* ship will see why wo could not charge cither one or the other. It had to bo jointly.” The Magistrate: “Yes.” His Worshij) added that tho two joint charges threw nuch light on that of the theft from Mrs Tosh. The mala accused was worthless, one of the moat despicable characters he ever had to deal with, because of the way in which ho laid evidence against his wife. On each charge the male accused was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor, the sentences to be concurrent. The charges against the wife were dismissed.