STOLEN FROCK

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 902, 20 February 1930, Page 1

STOLEN FROCK

SHOPLIFTER CAUGHT AND GAOLED DRESSES VALUED AT £6l When Mary Haslip and her daughter were seen in a City Street, both wearing frocks that had been stolen from Smith and Caughey, Ltd., the former was arrested. She pleaded guilty at the Police Court this morning to the theft of goods valued at £6l and was sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment. She was also placed on probation for two years. Haslip, a married woman, aged 41, was charged with the theft of frocks from Smith and Caughey, Ltd.—one valued at £l3 13s, stolen on February 4, one valued at £lO 10s, on February 14, and three valued at £37 16s. on February 7. Mr. Moody entered pleas of guilty on the three charges. Accused was living apart from her husband. Chief-Detective Hammond said. An employee of Smith and Caughey, Ltd., who was on holiday, had seen accused and her 19-years-old daughter wearing two of the stolen frocks in the street. The daughter was employed in the City and there was no suggestion that she had any part in the thefts. “We had some difficulty in finding out where Haslip lived.” added the chief-detective, “but when we went to her house we found these other three frocks. The chief-detective delved into a bag and brought out frocks, diaphanous and many-hued. Draping them over his arm he said:—“These have been worn and cannot be taken back into stock. The woman will have to make restitution.” Mr. Moody: I venture to suggest that £6l would show a very handsome profit. “Yes,” agreed Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. “Knock it down to £lO and you would be about right.”

WOMAN WAS WORKING Mr. Moody said the woman was working hard, managing an apartment house for her husband. Though he recognised that shop-lifters must be punished, counsel asked the magistrate not to send the woman to gaol on account of her health. A term of probation and a fine was suggested. “Her husband has stood by her in this trouble,” added counsel. “She stole from only one firm.” The Magistrate: Yes, but on different days. Mr. Moody: She found it easy the first time, so came back again. “I must be consistent,” declared the magistrate, imposing the term of 21 days’ imprisonment on the first charge. On the other two charges Haslip was admitted to probation for two years. “She stole things she didn’t want,” commented Mr. Hunt. “Look at this finery. The worst feature of the case is that she had one frock on her young daughter.” The chief-detective again introduced the question of restitution. "The amount is £6l, and that is the selling price of the goods,” he said, holding up the frocks to the view of the court. “I protest,” declared Mr. Moody. “It should be the subject of a civil claim. It has been laid down by one learned judge that a criminal court has not the right to fix the amount of civil liability.” After further exchanges as to the value of the goods the fixing of reasonable restitution was left to Major Annie Gordon, female probation officer. Haslip’s husband stepped toward the bench. “My wife is in bad health,” he protested. The Magistrate: Why don’t you look after her? The Husband: I do my best. The Magistrate: Well, I can’t have women shoplifting. Mr. Moody; It’s all right as long as we have consistency. If the next woman gets 21 days too, 1 shall be satisfied. J