Woman’s Defence “Not Convincing”

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 101, 20 July 1927, Page 1

Woman’s Defence “Not Convincing”

SHOPLIFTER FINED £lO BEDSPREAD STOLEN That she had taken a second parcel by mistake, was the defence which Alice Chapman, aged 43, made in the Police Court this morning to counter a shop-lifting charge. Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., did not believe her and imposed a fine of £lO. TICRS. CHAPMAN was charged with stealing a bedspread, valued at £6 6s, from a Newmarket store. A shop assistant said that on June 30, just after 2 p.m., accused purchased a remnant, for which she gave the correct money. The parcel was wrapped up, and beside it, on the counter, was a loosely wrapped parcel containing the bedspread. Accused did not go away immediately and witness saw her place the remnant parcel in an attache case. He went to the office and when he came back the bedspread had gone. Accused was the only person in the shop at the time. In evidence Mrs. Chapman said that she had not opened her attache case until July 11, and she then found the bedspread in it. She had made two purchases at the store and the parcels had evidently become mixed. The Magistrate: Why didn’t you bring that second parcel along with you? “I did not think it necessary,” replied the witness. Mr. Jordan, who appeared for accused, asked to have her name suppressed. The Magistrate: I’m not going to suppress the names of offenders in these cases—they’re too difficult to detect.