ANOTHER WOMAN’S PARCEL.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1922, Page 5

ANOTHER WOMAN’S PARCEL.

INTERESTING POSTAL CASE. SIX MONTHS’ PROBATION. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Charged with obtaining from the Stratford Post Office r» parcel containing ten pillowslips of the value of £1 5s and fraudulently retaining it when it should have ‘been delivered to another woman, a young married woman appeared in the Stratford Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. Mr. A. Coleman appeared for accused and Sergeant Dale conducted the case for the police. On the application of Mr. Coleman the magistrate made an order suppressing the publication of accused’s name.

Sergeant Dale said it was not suggested that the parcel was improperly obtained from the post office., but the offence was in the fraudulent retention of it when it should have been delivered. The magistrate said that he did not think such an indictable offence could be dealt with summarily by the Court under the Post Office Act, and the case was allowed to stand down until the Acts were scrutinised.

When the matter was brought on later considerable argument took place as to the power of. the Court to deal with it. Mr. Coleman suggested that .the case might be summarily dealt with if the information was altered to one of theft.

Sergeant Dale said theft was not alleged, but to allow of summary treatment he thought the ends of justice would be met if the information were altered to one of theft. This was accordingly done, a plea of guilty being entered.

Sergeant Dale said that in October, 1!>21, defendant was a single woman residing in Stratford. Another woman of similar name also resided in the town, but later left for Inglewood. After she had gone a parcel card was delivered at accused’s place of residence, and accused went to the post office and secured the parcel, which rightfully belonged to the other woman. When the other woman did not receive the expected parcel inquiries were made, and on account of accused’s signature at the post office—the signature, the sergeant said, was suspiciously like the other woman’s—the accused was approached. She at first denied having received the parcel, but later admitted having done so. Mr. Coleman said the defendant had a sister travelling at Home., and naturally expected th? parcel would come from her. On finding, however, that the parcel was not for her (accused) she took no action to restore the goods, which she considered of little value, and she merely used the pillowslips contained in the parcel as dysters. She was probably guilty of a certain amount of criminal negligence, but he thought the provisions of the Probation Act might be exercised with advantage in the circum- 1 stances. Accused had since married r respectable working man, and in view of all the circumstances it would be advisable that accused be granted the privileges of probation. He also urged that an order be made suppressing the publication of accused’s name.

The magistrate said he was going to leniently with accused, and probably he would get into trouble in some quarters for his leniency. Accused was to understand that the matter dil nor concern her alone, hut also incriminated the post office officials, who handled such parcels every dav, This was a most serious phase. The value of the goods was not large. Accused had sufficient money, he took it, to pay the rightful owner the value of the goods. If accused paid the value of the goods to the rightful owner she would he -admitted to probation for six months. He would also make an order that accused’s* name be not published, not for accused’s own sake, but in the interests of others concerned.