RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 1351, 23 December 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

: ' (Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) ' Thttbsdat, Decembeb 22. j Erances.Ann Lamb, a respectable-look-ing young female, was charged with appropriating certain articles of household plenishing, valued at 30s, the property of Hunter and Hawkshaw, grocers, Invercargill. , - A. Hawkshaw, one of the prosecutors, deposed- that the accused had been in the employment of his firm as housemaid for a period of three months. She left on the evening of > the -20th inst., leaving a box and other articles belonging to her in the house. The box was tied up, but unlocked.; The following day his.attention was directed to a bag belonging to the accused, and on examining its contents he discovered the blankets produced, which he identified as his property. The bag was repacked, and in accordance with prisoner's request, it was sent to her residence; Immediately afterwards he gave information, to the police, but they declined to act in the matter unless witness .obtained a search warrant. : ; The search warrant was got, and he (wiijness) accompanied the constables to prisoner's residence, where the articles produced were found. In addition to the blankets. \ these articles consisted of a small package of pepper,"currants, three plates, a hand ■ looking-glass, a tumbler, and the bottle j belonging to acruet^fandr To the best ;of his belief thai whole of these articles I belonged to his firm. j By Mr Wade — After examining the ! blankets "iri prisoner's bundle they were

replaced in the bag. The box and bag lay in the witness's house after she had left, subject to her orders. - There was no at, tempt whatever at concealment beyond the box being tied up anithe bag packed. After discovering the blankets, the box was sent to prisoner's residence, in accordance with her instructions. He (witness) was; averse to answer the question whether, he had ever Had .any reason for doubting the prisoner's honesty, s but onDeing pressed he said he' h^d reason to suspect that pilfering: had been going on somewhere. The things were sent to prisoner by her own request, but after discovering the blankets, he (witness) expected she would call for them, whsn he intended to have demanded some explanation. The articles produced had been given to prisoner for her use while in the house. They were all kept by her inside her bedroom, and although he could identify them as his property, he was not aware of having seen them during the whole three months. By the Court — They corresponded with things found to be awanting after prisoner left his employment. The value of. the articles was but. trifling, compared with manywhichinight hare been appropriated with equal facility. . David Hunter gave corroborative evidence, after which /, ' Inspector Chapman proved having visited the house of prisoner, armed with a search-warrant. He saw the prisoner, explained to -her his errand, and requested access to her box and bag. On examining j their contents, prosecators identified the j articles produced. Prisoner then admitted they were the property of her employers, adding that she had- taken the blankets away to have them washed. With regard to some of the other articles, she Baid that on first entering the prosecutors' employment, she had made use of her own personal property, which had been broken while being so used, and she con^ sidered she was entitled to have them re^ placed by the prosecutors. By Mr "Wade — Witness did not caution prisoner that anything she said might be used against her at her trial. Acting on a search-warrant, and not having prisoner in custody at the time, such a caution was not necessary. Witness did not ask her any questions. The admissions were made as voluntary statements. Prisoner was very much excited, and pleaded hard with the prosecutors for mercy. Mr Wade contended that the fact of one of the prosecutors having replaced the blankets in the box, after identifying them as his property, and actually sending them away out of his own possession into the possession of the prisoner, did away with the offence so far as the | charge of " steal, take, and carry away " < was concerned. With respect to the other things he contended that they were simply trifles, and their appropriation could not constitute an act of theft. The admissions, made to the constable should notr, under the circumstances, be given anyjweight to* An unprotected female, suddenly .... confronted with _*i posae-oF-police, was. bound to get confused, and it was hardly fair to make that confusion an evidence against her. Her own explanation jwas-IWa^b^had-replaced _ certain articles^ belonging to herself which had been. destroyed while used in prosecutors' ""servfep.- The:4?lanl3^ta_ihe_had taken away to get washed, which, however indiscreet an act, was only natural, considering that she had had them for her own use. •.:"- The Magistrate found the offence proven, aggravated by the fact that it had been committed by a domestic servant, to whom it was absolutely necessary that property should be entrusted. It was a sad case, and he was willing to believe that the present was the first offence. The surrounding circumstances, would • not allow him to be so lenient as he otherwise might be. Prisoner was sent to gaol for fourteen days, with hard labor.