At the Wellingborough Police Court on Friday last, before Mr. N. P. Sharman (in the chair), Mr. Edward Sharman, Rev. T. Richards, Mr. E. B. Randall, Mr. W. H. Wilkins, Mr. O. Parker, Mr. F. Knight, Mr. J. Page.
Lily E. Hackett (17), single woman, Rushden, was brought up in custody charged with stealing six pairs of men’s boots, value 30s, at Rushden, between March 21st and April 18th. – John Ellard, shoe manufacturer, Rushden, said prisoner had been in his employ nine or ten weeks, working in the stock-room. On Tuesday last he was shown the boots produced at the police station. He recognised six out of seven pairs as his property. He valued them at about £2. – Arthur Chapman, pawnbroker’s manager, spoke of prisoner pledging boots on different dates, he advancing sums from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. for each pair. He gave her six tickets, and afterwards she left seven tickets with the assistant for him. He afterwards told her he did not want the tickets and gave her 1s. for herself. He destroyed the tickets. He was away on the 18th April, and on his return the assistant made a communication to him, handing him seven tickets. – To Supt. Alexander: It was after that he gave prisoner the shilling. The last pair were “tens.” On one occasion when she was pledging shoes he asked her to get a pair of “nines.” She said she had an uncle in Northampton, from whom the boots had come. – Mabel Smith, pawnbroker’s assistant, said she knew the prisoner and was present when some of the boots were pledged. On April 18th she was in charge of the shop, and received a pair of boots and six pawn-tickets. She handed the tickets to Chapman. Prisoner afterwards came and asked Chapman what he was going to advance on the tickets, and he gave her a shilling for pocket-money. Witness could not say why. The tickets were destroyed, and the boots were then her employer’s property. It was usual to purchase the tickets in that way. – P.S. Slaughter said on the 22nd inst., from information received, he visited the pawnbroker’s shop and received seven pairs of boots produced. He showed them to prisoner the same evening, telling her they had been traced to her possession, but she denied any knowledge of them. He charged her with stealing them from Ellard’s factory during the past month. She then said, “I will tell you the truth. I took the six pairs from Mr. Ellard’s factory at different, times, and pledged them. On one occasion the pawnbroker asked me if I would get him a pair of “nines,” box calf. I got a pair for my father, and afterwards took them to the pawnbroker, and he lent me 4s 6d on them. He afterwards bought the ticket for 2s. I also sold him the six tickets of Mr. Ellard’s boots. The other pair are my brother’s, and I pledged them for my mother, and sold the ticket to the pawnbroker, who gave me 1s for the seven tickets. No one else knows anything about it I sent my sister Maud with a pair on Friday last to pledge for me.” – Defendant elected to have the case dealt with summarily, and pleaded guilty. – Mr. Ellard said he did not wish to press the case, and asked that she should be dealt with under the First Offenders’ Act. He thought the pawnbroker was to blame for the way in which he had acted. – Supt. Alexander said that unfortunately the girl had a bad example set by the mother, who must have known what was going on, but wanted money for drink. – Chapman was called up, and the Chairman asked if he was not aware that it was his duty to ascertain in every case that the goods were the property of those seeking to pledge them. Could he think that those boots were the property of so young a girl? Then there had been remarkable disclosures as to the buying of the tickets, which looked very much like dishonesty. The evidence had been taken down and probably he (Chapman) would hear of it again, as such actions seemed likely to encourage young people to steal. The disclosure was a most disgraceful one, and might be a serious thing for the witness. Turning to the prisoner the Chairman remarked that she had been convicted of a serious charge. It was not a case of yielding to temptation on one occasion, but she had followed up the practice day by day. She had rendered herself liable to two months’ imprisonment, and the Bench could not accede to the wish so kindly expressed by her employer that she might be treated under the First Offenders Act. They would, however, deal leniently with her and fine her £1, fourteen days allowed for payment, and fourteen days in default.
|
