A HARD CASE.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2683, 13 November 1882, Page 3

A HARD CASE.

WELLINGTON, November 11.

On Wednesday last a respectable married woman named Symes was sentenced to fourteen days’ hard labor for larceny of an umbrella on what is usually regarded as most unsatisfactory evidence. The “ Post” to-night says in reference to the case : “ Another curious case of alleged unjust conviction has come under notice. On Wednesday last a woman named Symss was accused of stealing a green silk umbrella, the property of Mrs Brighton, who had left it at the Wellington Hospital, where the defendant was a patient, and whose husband swore that he subsequently found it in the possession of the latter, recognising it by certain particular patches. Fertile defence it was deposed hy several witnesses, friends of the accused, that the umbrella found in her possession was purchased several years ago at Christchurch, the names of the vendors and the circumstances of the transaction being distinctly remembered and stated. The defendant’s witnesses also identified the umbrella hy certain marks. It further appeared that there was no hesitation to produce the disputed umbrella when asked for by the police, and in short that nothing seemed to favor the assumption of guilt, save the possession of the umbrella, while that was claimed hy both parties on apparently equivalent proof. The reasonable supposition would seem to be that it was a case of mistaken identity as regards the umbrella, but to the general surprise of those who heard the case, Mr Hardcastle, R.M., pronounced the charge proved, and sentenced the defendant, who is said to be a respectable woman, in delicate health, to fourteen days’ imprisonment. It seems to ns that this involves much danger of grave wrong being done. The testimony looked at in the most favorable light for the prosecution was equally balanced, and therefore the accused should have received the benefit of the doubt, hut in view of the fact that the whole question turned on the identity of an old umbrella, we cannot help thinking that the presumption is greatly in favor of the defendant’s version, and that of her witnesses, while we attribute to the other aide nothing worse than mistake of memory. "We believe it can be proved that the defendant was not in the hospital within some weeks after or before the umbrella being left there hy Mrs Brighton, and that Mrs Symes has been in. continuous possession of the umbrella, which she claimed to he hers, ever since purchasing it in Christchurch. It is clear, too, that the inability of the accused or her husband to give evidence in the casemust have seriously prejudiced her chancesWe are glad to hear that the matter is. i kely to be further investigated.”