A MISSING BRACELET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2219, 17 June 1908, Page 2

A MISSING BRACELET.

YOUNG WOMAN CHARGED WITH THEFT. CONVICTED AND FINED £l. -acmmmm A young woman named Olive Wallen appeared on remand at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Messrs John Somervell and F. W. Riacli, J.’s P., to answer a charge of having on August 12j 1907, committed the theft of one bangle valued at- £3, the property of one Nellie Hart. Sergeant Hutton conducted the proecution, and accused was defended by Mr. T. Alston Coleman. Nellie Hart, housemaid at the Coronation Hotel, stated that accused had formerly worked with her at- the hotel. Tliey occupied adjoining rooms. About- August 12th last witness missed the bangle, which she identified as her property, The last she had-seen of t-lie bangle was on tile sewing machine in her room a couple of days previously to the day she missed it. She made inquiries about it, but could not- trace it at- the time. To Mr. Coleman: There was not a feeling of spite between.>lier and accused, but- they had a few little “tiffs” while working together at tho Coronation hotel.

Constable Dandy stated that lie was on duty at- the wharf on Sunday afternoon. He received a complaint about the bangle, from the informant. The Tuatea. was just about to go out, and he ivas standing at the gangway. Hie informant was standing on other side of the gangway and whom accused came on to the gangways witness saw tho informant speak jbf her. Accused stooped down and saidi “Don’t he a fool, Nellie,” “It ig no 4 hero, “I know nothing about it.” H« was positive that this conversation; took place.

Agnes O’Brien said that 6he waa. general servant at the Royal Hotel where accused had lately - been, employed. She was wearing the bangle v in question when on iioard the Tuatea, and she’ and accused were going to Wellington. She had occupied tho same room as accused at- the Royal Hotel, and. had seen the bangle hanging ip) on a nail in the room. There was no attempt, at concealment, and witness had worn the bangle several ■ times. She believed it to be file property of the accused. To Mr. Coleman: She was ill town 1 with accused on Saturday night, and she saw Miss Hart speak to accused when they were in Adair Brothers’ snop. She did not hear wliat was said, but accused told her afterwards . that she had told Miss Hart that ste (accused) was going to Wellington Die following evening. Accused was* not- wearing the bangle in question on Saturday night, but was Wearing a gold curb bangle of her own Sergeant Hutton stated that in con- ~V" sequence of information lie received v; he boarded the Tuatea on Sunday ev- • and had an interview with tho fin' ¥ e , s,>okc . t ? her about the bangle ,aiul she positively denied hav- - fL. „Ji r?ce H an<l that sho knew nothing whatever about it. On pressure, accused admitted that she ned W 510 and she turs|?,ko t 0 witness ;j£ n r V P' ho was with- her on llc latter took tho bangle - off her arm and handed it to accused "-h« turn handed it to He t on took accused into custody after Hurt n e i\ ad 1,0011 identified by Miss L, °" V l6 to the Police Sta--10)1 accused said that she knew she was but , tho real fact nrr fi ll , ,la d f° lllld it when sweep--at the head of the stairs. AccusSloimeifte ?r tB TT 0 k ; ne ' v - lho ban fd° face se,n t i M , !s . s Harts and that she her who,, 10,1(1 ,iav .° returned it. to ad lint S -J° T as iUS ' k °d about it-. She because fdi 1,( ?"' ovor . not so much t S V 'l’ W tq steal .it, as that " ■ ami fj, * l spite-against Miss Hart. , . e rrie, 1 K ‘" ."“I*®** tbat * ho bad ' ■ ti ii ■ KPitc too far. • • 0 1,10 eonclusion of his. evidence, T Vt Se.gea'.t Hutton, in closing the case B.noi e i l )rosoout,<)1 I- referred the y'i V, o i Spctw A' ? 7 o{ the Criminal # Loilo, defining theft. fnrii, °? IC r'" an "Pressed tho Court " V v| facts of ,, ofono °’ ail d stated that tlie tac sol the case were common - round ;; ' coiiect 10 ada'itted to be, in tluTmain, co ieit. Hp submitted that there : f tl ° mtent on the parf ; - | M the accused, but that ber action M tlm S r«?U ,n ? ly f r ll i s . ll > a "d lla d suite ° f u leelmg of feminine . £ between the parties. Ho' did v : : I,l^e,u ] to call evidence, but- was 1 piopared to do so. and the accused’s employers were willing to testify to’ b< i i('liability i and trustworthiness. I-omiM'l coueluded bis address by mak- 1:ing a rtrong anneal to the Bench for ifi f y ° ' vbo ha d hitherto 'M bomo a m-vl /‘liaractor Sergeant Hutton said'that there' W wf' that accused -M tbmg but .vrespectable young ‘"a' in r parents were also re- ’ speelaiile poonle. s'.,R thoir decision, the Bench ffl •said that tiiey.w. -e exceedingly sor- Ef. flic ?, S!;r, a •'*''"»»« woman occunving. .j-jf .. V„ tb it' she did. Had the \ would' ,0 °" ••'’"'""tfcd.hy „ man lie :i| •i one, been committed for trial y c'let wie Aco,! V‘d that the bra, r# sliould b ,vf° "V and she owiier Ti ll:,,u! °d to its rightful G o ‘ 11 naiuful case] but iiMi-! 010 an the Urn-'. i„ adiiiinisfer - mid fined A CI" ?Pi W<n,Vl 1,0 001,viot e d M