SHOPLIFTERS GAOLED.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 July 1921, Page 6

SHOPLIFTERS GAOLED.

FOUR. WOMEN CAUGHT. SYSTEMATIC THIEVING IN PALMERSTON NORTH. At the Palmerston North. Afagistrate’s Court on Monday, before Mr, J. L. Stout, S.M., four women, Ada Prouse, Ada Brothers, and Nellie Buick, all of Longburii, and Margaret iConlin, of Palmerston. North, were arraigned on several charges of theft, the outcome of an alleged shop-lifting expedition indulged in by them on Saturday. The accused were arrested on Saturday afternoon, brought before the Court, and remanded until Monday. The very serviceable collection of articles, many of which were “marked down to half price,” were displayed in Court. Following were the charges:— Ada Prouse was charged with stealing one pair of boots, valued at 225, the property of the C. M. Ross Co., Idd., and two pairs of stockings, two lengths of embroidery, four aprons, nine hair combs, valued at £2 6s 7d, the property of the Premier Drapery Company, Ltd. Ada Prouse and Margaret Conlin were jointly charged with taking eight pairs of socks, the property of the D.M. George Estate, valued at £1 6s; and, with Nellie Buick, six glasses and one vase, valued at 16s Bd, the property of Thomas Lyons, of the Occidental Hotel.

Alargaret Conlin was separately charged with stealing four aprons, valued at 19s Bd, the property of the Premier Drapery Company Ltd.

Nellie Buick was said to have stolen half-a-dozen lady's handkerchiefs, one roll of ribbon, of a value of 4s 4d, the property of the Premier Drapery Company.

Ada Brothers was alleged to have stolen three aprons, one scarf, three handkerchiefs, four pairs of stockings, one roll of ribbon, of a total value of £4 3s lid, the property bf v the Premier Drapery Company, Ltd. Air. Ongley appeared for all the accused. He pleaded guilty to all charges against Prouse, Brothers and Conlin, but not guilty to the charges incriminating Buick. Buick, he said, was not guilty of either stealing or receiving. Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick quoted the law on the point of people being together at the time of a theft, submitting that one was as much the party to the theft as the other, irrespective of who actually took the goods. These four women, he said, had set out on a deliberate tour to purloin whatever they could. In respect to the charges against Buick, the licensee of the Occidental Hotel identified the missing property. He mentioned that he had lost 21 glasses that day. Detective Culloty said that accused had stated, when arrested, that the glass and soft goods had been put into her pocket without her knowledge. Accused at first refused to come to the police station or the P.D.C. To Mr. Ongley: Witness denied having handled accused roughly. He had no warrant to arrest her. He would be surprised to find bruises on accused.

•Mr. Ongley submitted that there was no evidence on which to convict Airs. Buick. She had admitted being with the others in the hotel, but knew nothing of the goods being put into her pocket. The. parties who had taken them had pleaded guilty. Accused gave evidence along these lines.

Ada Brothers, from the witness box, swore that she put the P.D.C. goods found on Airs. Buick in the latter’s pocket. »She had slipped them in quietly while Airs. Buick was buying some- , thing. She knew nothing of the glass. Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick pointed out that they all must have been on a deliberate “lifting” tour, and 'would have got away with it. “Shop lifting” was rife in Palmerston North, and there were many complaints.

The Magistrate held that Mrs. Buick must have had some knowledge of having received the goods. She would have to be convicted of “receiving.” The charges were accordingly amended.

Mr. Ongley, addressing the Court, said it was impossible to account for such cases as the present ones. None of the parties were in want. Accused Prouse was the wife of a retired farmer, Mrs. Buick had lived in Longburxi for very many years, and was the wife of a well-known contractor, who was highly respected. Accused ” Conlin was an old age pensioner, and was 73 years of age. Miss Brothers had been working for Mrs. Prouse, and had lately arrived in the country. In asking that they be admitted to probation, Air. Ongley said the accused had already suffered much; they had lost the respect of the community, which, he thought was sufficient punishment.

The Magistrate said ho had listened carefully to what Air. Ongley had to say. “It is difficult for me,” he said, “to know what to do with people of this class. I think I would not be fulfilling my duty to permit people going round town, visiting shops and hotels, and during those visits really doing what amounts to systematic thieving. These people seem to have all been together during the visits, and at thuee different shops things were stolen. You have said there is nothing previously known against them. One does not like to think that there was anything against them in the past, but it seems i o me that when people go round systematically thieving, there is at least a grave suspicion that it is not the first time they have been at it, although it is the first time they have been caught. We have read a lot lately about cargo pilfering and offences of this nature, and it is becoming altogether too prevalent and common in the community.” Painful as it was to him, he would have to meet the offences with' terms of imprisonment. The four accused were convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment on each charge, except in the cases of the P.D.C-. thefts by Prouse and Brothers, the sentences on these particular counts being one month each. All the sentences were made concurrent, and a general order for restitution of the. goods was made.