EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 March 1924, Page 4

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

NO REASON TO STEAL, BUT BOTH

GUILTY

AVELLINGTON, Alarcli 15

A married woman and a young girl of 17 were charged at the Afagistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker. S.AI., with the theft- of two pairs of shoes, valued at £0 10s, the property of Ardrey and Co., Ltd. Chief-Detective Kemp stated that the two defendants entered the shop of the complainant firm on the 11th, and oue of them asked to see a pair of silk court shoes. The assistant informed her that they had no court shoes, but showed her a pair of brocade shoes. The younger accused tried them on, but was not satisfied with them. "While putting on her shoes the young woman succumbed to temptation, and took the brocade shoes. The other accused, who was.:: married woman, also annexed a pair. As the younger accused was known in the shop, the police were informed, and the goods were found ill tho possession of the accused. NO NEED TO STEAL.

Mr .T. B. Stevenson, who appeared for the defendants, said the younger accused had been given money by her mother to purchase shoos, and there was no need for her to have taken tho articles. Her parents were respectable people, said counsel, and they wore prepared to make full restitution. As to the other accused, counsel said she was a married woman, living apart from her husband, and supporting a child of 12 years. Counsel asked for the utmost leniency, ns both defendants had never been previously in court.

His Worship stated that, the thefts were not the result of a sudden temptation. but ratlicr tlie outcome of a well-thought out plan on the part of both accused. ITo would convict the elder accused, and admit her to probation for nine months, a condition being that restitution ho made. GIRL GIVEN A CHANCE. In the case of the girl, His Worship said lie would give her a chance, and treat her as if she were a juvenile. She would he convicted, and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon.

An order was made for the suppression of her name. Counsel said the Act which gave power to a magistrate !o order the suppression of a name was meant to help a person who had been granted probation. If the other defendant’s name was published, said cotuise.l it would mean that she would lose her business connection. There was a recent ease of shoplifting in which the magistrate refused to order the name to be suppressed. The reason for that said counsel, was because the defendant was employed in the complainant’s shop, and il her name were suppressed then it would moan that suspicion would fall on the other assistants. Counsel submitted that in the present case tho circumstances were different, and asked that the name should not he published. TO HELP ACCUSED. His AVorship declared that when a person was admitted to probation it generally followed that the name was suppressed. “It is to help the accused to help themselves,” declared His Worship, “and it is like helping with one hand and pushing down

with the other if the first offender is granted probation but relused the suppression of the name.” His AYorhsip made tho order for the non-publication of the name.