A POSTAL PACKET.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 May 1922, Page 6

A POSTAL PACKET.

ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. MARRIED WOMAN CHARGED. VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. Only one criminal charge was heard by Mr. Justice Reed at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. Mabel Brooking, a young married woman, was' charged that she did, at Eltham, on January 13, 1922, make a false declaration with regard to a postal packet; also with making a declaration to the effect that the packet had been fraudulently opened and £26 abstracted therefrom, and also with fraudulently attempting to obtain £26 from the Postmaster-General. Mr. C. H. Weston prosecuted. Accused, who was defended by Mr. A. A. Bennett, pleaded not guilty to all charges. The following jury was empanelled: W. J. B. Hinckley, G. M. Kebbell, junr., J. G. Boulton, A. S. Marett, A. B. McDonald, R. C. Alsopp, F. E. Grbell, A. Rowe, Hy. Dodd, P. D. McGregor, F. L. R. Inder, A. E. Looney. Mr, F. E. Orbell was chosen foreman. All withesses were ordered out of court.

The Crown Prosecutor said that the three charges arose out of the same set of circumstances. She first of all fraudulently stated that she posted the money, in Palmerston North, and that when the J letter reached Eltham the money was not there, having been abstracted. She [ also attempted to obtain £26 from the | Postal Department on account of the ■ money having been lost. As a matter ' of fact, he said, the Postmaster-General j was protected by Act against such loss, | ■but there, was the possibility that he j might have applied for authority to pay i tnis, or that some of the officials, rather ; than bear the suspicion, would have paid j the money themselves. The Crown there- j fore suggested that when the accused ap- j plied to the postmaster, it was wi|h the ' intention of obtaining the money. He i then detailed the circumstances of the I. case, pointing out that the accused had ( given great details of tne loss, even to I the extent of giving the number of the j £ 1 note, and the fact that some phrase was ’written on the back. This was all

right, if the money had been genuinely j placed in the letter, but if it had not, j it showed that the crime had been skil- ; fully planned. RECEIPT OF THE LETTER. , ; The first witness was Eileen Kilbride, [ 1 clerk in the employ of' Mr. M. McGarry, ( 1 of Eltham, who deposed that on January ■ 10 she signed for a registered letter at f 1 the Eltham Post Office. This was opened by Mr. McGarry The letter produced ■ was the one. It stated that £26 was j enclosed, being £25 for a promissory : note and £1 interest. Mr. McGarry, on : finding that the money was not enclosed, handed the letter to witness to look at., She did not examine the envelope. I To Mr. Bennett: She did not know! whether there was any written authority for her to receive registered letters ; at the post-office. She did not see Mr. ; McGarry actually open the letter, as he ■ was in another room. There was also a ‘ blank sheet in the letter, and this, with the other sheet, showed definite indica- - tion of having been folded down at the 1 corner. She had not noticed that the j ’ end of the envelope had been tampered I with. To His Honor: Witness had signed for j registered letters at the post-office for | the past three years. , j Michael Edward McGarry, land agent 1 at Eltham, deposed that he had lent ac- I eused’s husband £25 on a promissory ’ note, which was due about the Christmas holidays, but he wrote and asked them not to bother about it until he re- : turned from Auckland early in January. ; The interest was £ 1. He detailed re- I ceipt of the leter, which did not con- ; tain the money mentioned. He did not 1 carefully examine the envelope, but as ' it did not contain the money, he put it ; on one side. He reported the matter ■ to the postmaster, and also wrote dravz- I ing Mrs. BrooKing’s attention to the : fact that the money had not been re- ■ ceived. A day or two later Mrs. Brook- 1 ing called to see him, and he informed • her that there was no money in the en- j veiope. She suggested that they should I examine the envelope, which they did, j and noticed that the envelope had been ! slit open at one end and lightly gummed ; together again At witness’s suggestion they saw the postmaster. Accused gave • him the impression that she was sur- , prised the money was not in the en- ; veiope. He had since been paid in full j by the Brookings, but could not remem- ! ber what Mrs. Brooking had said when paying a portion of the amount. Cross-examined by Mr. Bennett: He I was quite satisfied that he was not re- ; sponsible for the cut at the end of the , envelope, which had been made before it i came into his possession. He did not ; remember the postmaster saying that it ‘ was a work of art the way the envelope had been opened. The money due was in connection with the purchase of a house, and there would have been no consequences had the money not been paid. The accused went, willingly to see the postmaster, and did not impress him with having anything to hide. POSTMASTER’S EVIDENCE. William Henry Anderson, postmaster at Eltham, deposed that Mrs. Brooking informed him that she had put in the ■ envelope two £lO notes, a £5 and? £!, all Bank of New Zealand notes. She gave 1 the number of the £1 note, and said it had writing on the back: “Will ye noo ; come back again? ’ She had taken the number of this note, because she. had in- : tended sending it to Dunedin. She had • stated that the notes were placed in the envelope in the presence of her father, 1 and she drew his attention to the way . she had attached the money to the paper, splitting the’ notes as wlill as the ; paper. I In cross-examination, witness stated that the letter had remained at Wariga- j nui for a night, reaching Eltham the following afternoon. There was little possibility of the letter being interfered, with bv post-office officials. To ilis Honor: As the letter came, through Palmerston, Wangamui and Eltham offices, possibly seven or eight people would handle it. Witness detailed the precautions taken with registered

letters. He did not think it would be possible in an office such as Wanganui to get the money out without being seen, as there were too many on duty. He did not think there was any possibility of the letter being interfered with in the Eltham office. The green slip was put on at Eltham, n.nd if the letter had been open then, it should have been noticed. From its appearance, he thought it had been lightly gummed. Detective-’Sergeant Cooney was then called. After Mr. Bennett had crossexamined the witness on the question of the statement, His Honor said that the statement should be admitted and a case reserved for the Court eff Appeal in the event of accused being convicted. Detective-Sergeant Cooney then gave evidence that he had visited the accused on January 21, in company with Air. Anderson, and she asserted that she had enclosed the notes. Enquiries were then made in Wanganui’ and Palmerston North, and in response to further information he, in compahy with Constable Townsend, saw her at her home on 1 March 2. He stated that he had a signed statement from her father stating that he did not know the amount put into the envelope, and that he had sent £26 to Mr. BrooK’mg. She then said that on the way to Palmerston North she had lost her handbag with the money in it. He then took a statement from her in writing, which she signed. His Honor noted that Mr. Bennett objected to the admission of this evidence. To Mr. Weston: Accused signed it. Accused. asked would there be any more about the cheques, and witness said that so far there was nothing in the hands of the police. Cross-examined: When he interviewed accused on January 26, with Mr. Anderson and her husband, she said positively that she had enclosed the money in the envelope. Before going to accused on the second occasion he had made a fairly complete investigation, and knew what was in the statements made by her father and her sister. He could not have been satisfied at that time that she was guilty, and he would not have laid the charge against her but for the statement she made on March 2. He did not know that nearly the whole of the statement got from accused was untrue; in fact, he believed it was tme., '

Constauie Townsend, of Eltham, gave corroborative evidence. This closeu the case for the prosecution. Mr. Bennett, who did not call any evidence, addressed the court, claiming that accused should have the benefit of the doubt. JUDGE SUMS UP. His Honor, in summing up, said that what the jury had to decide was whether the accused had told the truth when she said that she had put the money into the postal packet, or not, The case was a very important one from the point of view of the public and also of the postal officials. If a person wilfully stated that money was placed in a letter when it was not, they could see how bad it was from the point of view of the postal officials through whose hands the letter had passed, as they might be wrongly suspected for years. He briefly : outlined the evidence, and said that the point was whether, when accused made the statement that she put the money in the envelope, she was lying. If she was lying, she was guilty; and if not, she was not guilty. The Crown said that the accused admitted the offence and asked the jury to accept that statement as showing that the statement she made to the postal officials was not true. This signed statement was that she had lost her bag containing the money on the train, ’and that she had not put the £26 in the envelope. Accused had not denied that she had made this statement. If that confession were true, it was a complete admission of guilt: but if they thought the accused had made an untrue statement because the detective misled her, or for some other reason known only to herself, they were entitled to discard it, but not otherwise There was no evidence that the money had been put into the envelope. It was true the Crown had to prove the guilt of the accused, and they had produced evidence to show that accused had made the statement that she had put the money in the envelope. There was also the evidence that she had confessed that ' she had not put it in. The jury retired at 4.50 p.m., and re- ! turned 20 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. , > Accused was then discharged. The Court then rose till 10.30 this , morning.