A FUR COAT

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1933, Page 2

A FUR COAT

THEFT BY A HUSBAND. WIFE FOUND NOT GUILTY. AUCKLAND, February 20. A fur coat valued at £B2 10s was stolen from Ballantyne and Company’s showroom in Christchurch last October. In the Supreme Court last week Ivy Mary Goodin, a married woman, was charged with the offence, and also with receiving the coat knowing it to have been stolen. She pleaded not guilty. Air A. T. Donnelly appeared for the prosecution and accused was represented by Mr 1). W. Russell.

Air Donnelly said that on October 6 the accused went into the shop anct tried on some fur coats. A few days_ later a coat was missed, and a. few weeks later the police searched her room and found the coat in an attache case. The accused had said she had always kept the coat there, and had bought it from a Airs Miller in Wellington, and had paid £ls for it. She had told the police she had had the coat for 12 months. The accused’s husband had already pleaded guilty to the theft of the coat.

Evidence of identification was given by employees of the firlm

Mi* Russell contended that there was no evidence that accused had taken the coat, while oh the other hand her husband had been punished by law for having taken it. It was frankly admitted that the coat bad been stolen from the showroom, but not by accused. On the charge of receiving, the husband had said he had put the coat in the attache case, and there was no evidence of his wife having any knowledge of its being placed there. Also there was no evidence of the accused having worn the coat.

All* Justice Reed pointed out to the jury that there was evidence of accused going to the shop, inspecting the coat and giving a false name. His Honor referred to the husband being a taxidriver, who was out of work, and it did not seem possible that a man in that position could have a fur coat of the kind produced. without arousing his wife’s suspicions. There were tw<~ things for the jury to consider. First, was accused guilty of theft by helping her husband to get- the coat; secondly, when it came into his possession did she receive the coat from him knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained? The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the first count, and guilty on the second charge of receiving.

Air Justice Reed said that- offences in the nature of taking goods from shops were becoming very common indeed, and he thought the extension of the Offenders Probation Act had gone too far in this class of ease. A senteuce of one month’s imprisonment with hard labour was imposed.