PAWNBROKER’S CHALLENGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 799, 21 October 1929, Page 1

PAWNBROKER’S CHALLENGE

Wicked Aspersions Made” BUSINESS MEN AND SHOPLIFTING “Come Out Into the Open” I ET business men come into the open and repeat against f 1 a "y individual pawnbroker the charge which it has been thought fit to make under cover.” Thus a City pawnbroker began a forcible contribution to the shoplifting controversy, in a statement to THE SUN this morning.

He referred to the claims made by the Auckland Retail Drapers’ Association, the Karangahape Road Business Protection Society, and an individual businessman, that shoplifting would be discouraged it it were made more difficult for thieves to dispose of stolen goods. It was advocated that sellers of new clothing and boots should be obliged to secure, a police permit. “The statements appear to be more of an attack on pawnbrokers than an attempt to solve a difficult problem,” said the pawnbroker. "The position from our point of view is hopelessly mis-stated. No denial has been made that, at times, goods purchased have been found eventually to have been stolen. The inference, however, is that all goods exhibited in pawnbrokers’ establishments have been stolen, and that they were received with that knowledge. REPUTABLE BODY “in Saturday’s Sun the position is aggravated by the extract from a report of a meeting of the Retailers' Association," said the pawnbroker. "It was pointed out that the fact that these goods are sold to the pawnbrokers at a mere fraction of their value must be an Indication to the put chaser that they have not been honestly obtained.” “These gentlemen have overstepped the bounds of discretion in casting such a wicked aspersion on a body of reputable businessmen. “Now. I would like to know what the police are doing about the matter. Here in our very midst, according to the businessmen, a number of persons are allowed to carry on the nefarious practice of dealing In stolen property, and nobody is charged with the offence. It sounds as if the police are in league with the pawnbrokers, ana it demands an immediate investigation. “The suggestion that the Pawnbrokers’ Act permits the purchase of goods at one-tenth of their value exhibits appalling igndrance on the subject. ‘“Perhaps it is now advisable to state a few facts on our buying system.

"When a pawnbroker suspects that an article is dishonestly obtained, he certainly does try to buy it for a mere fraction of its value, and in this procedure he is acting on police instructions. "In this manner, the police are able to restore the article to its rightful owner at a very small cost. Now supposing a valuable article were offered, and the pawnbroker, suspecting it was stolen, refused to have anything to do with it, the probability is that the rightful owner would never recover his property again, and, further, when the detective department made their inquiries, the pawnbroker would perhaps have his licence endorsed for not assisting the police. EVIL ANALYSED "If businessmen made a few inquiries, they would discover that pawnbrokers’ licences are not granted indiscriminately. Five reputable persons must certify to the applicant’s character, a favourable police report cation is heard in open court before a cant is heard in open court before a stipendiary magistrate. The pawnbrokers of this city, as a body, are as honourable as any businessmen in Auckland. “Coming back to the shoplifting evil, in my opinion there are two classes of shoplifters. The first usually consists of women who lift wearing apparel, etc., from inside the shop, and either wear it themselves, or hoard it up. These persons do not lift goods that are’ of any interest to pawnbrokers. The second class contains the “door snatcher,” invariably a drunkard. From this pest the pawnbroker is as big a sufferer as anyone else. We would gladly welcome and co-operate in any system that could be evolved to check the practice, but the permit suggestion of the businessmen is out of the question. “Imagine a city man wearing a new Stetson home, and discavering that his wife does not like the shade. Before ho could dispose of it, he would have to go to police headquarters and obtain a permit, and in case of accident, the police would perhaps deem it advisable to take his photograph and fingerprints also- —too ludicrous altogether.”