RUSE THAT FAILED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 717, 17 July 1929, Page 11

RUSE THAT FAILED

WOMAN’S EFFORT TO COVER LOSS TOOK FRIEND’S WAGES Fearing her husband's wrath when she told him that she had accidentally burned £l2 10s, a woman tried to hide the fact by means of a ruse that resulted in her appearance at the Police Court this morning. The woman was charged this morning with stealing £l2 10s, the property of Archibald Aloore on May 31 and fraudulently stating that she had posted a packet containing £l2 10s, when the packet had really contained no money. Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for accused and entered a plea of guiltfy on the theft charge. Counsel asked that the indictable charge be withdrawn as it was really the same offence. Chief-Detective Hammond was of the opinion that the magistrate should hear some evidence before making his decision. The facts were that Aloore, who was a fellow-employee of accused’s husband, had gone to the country for a holiday leaving an order to draw his wages with his friend. Accused had received Moore’s wages | from her husband to forward and had sent off a registered letter with a note in it but without the money. Aloore had wired saying that the money was not in the letter and received a reply from the woman saying that she had posted it. “Under the Post and Telegraph Act she is liable to a line of £SO or two years’ imprisonment,” added the chief-detective. Air. Sullivan held that the implication of the Act was that the fraudulent statement should be made to a person in authority—a post office official. Moore said that he had received his first pay all right after making the arrangement to have it forwarded to where he was staying. On June 1 he had received a registered letter with a note but no money in it. He had wired to the home of the man who was to send the money: “Wages, £l2 10s, not in registered letter,” receiving the reply, “Sent money yesterday, £l2 10s.” Witness had then interviewed the country postmaster, making a formal complaint. He had talked with his felow-employee at Auckland by telephone and communicated with Detective White at 'Hamilton. Evidence was given by Post and Telegraph officers relating to the reply to Moore’s telegram sent by accused. Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike said that he interviewed accused on June 7, when, after slight hesitation, she had admitted that she had not sent the money. Her story, as told in statements produced by witness, was that she had accidentally burned the money. She had received Moore’s pay and her husband's at the same time, putting all the money on the mantelpiece. About £l2 10s had been burned and she had been afraid to mention it to her husband. Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., found himself in agreement with Air. Sullivan in regard to his interpretation of the Act. He also thought that the clause meant that the fraudulent statement should be made to an official. He accordingly dismissed the charge. In regard to the theft. Air. Sullivan said that his client adhered to her story of the money being burned. She was a good mother to her four young children and had never previously been in court. Counsel applied for suppression of the woman’s name, which was granted, the magistrate saying that he considered the request reasonable on account of the woman’s state of health. Major Gordon supported counsel’s plea and the woman was ordered to come up for sentence within six months if called upon. She was ordered to make restitution