[women defendants in crime – pawnbroking – fraud – sentencing discretion]

R. v. Keevil

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 22 July 1839

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 26 July 1839[1]

            Ann Keevil was placed at the bar, charged with knowingly and unlawfully impawning, on the 22nd June, a silk cloak, the property of John Reeves, without his consent, and with intent to deprive him of the use thereof.

            The Attorney General observed that this was a case under a local act, for prevention, fraud in taking articles in pawn. The cloak in question, said the learned gentleman, was entrusted to this woman by Mrs. Reeves to alter, but found its way to the pawnshop of Messrs. Roberts & Co. He had read elsewhere that Mr. Roberts considered it a hard case on himself, and the respectable community of which he was a member, that after taking every precaution against receiving stolen goods in pawn, they should be compelled to lose the amount lent upon any article which might turn out to be unlawfully pledged. He had no doubt whatever of the integrity of these respectable men, the pawn-brokers, nor did he for some moment question the fact that they did use such precautionary measures as they considered sufficient; but he did himself entertain and was confident the Jury would coincide with him, the opinion that the public had as much right to be protected as the pawnbrokers and therefore that Mr. Roberts must set down under the loss. Either the pawnbroker or the plundered party, must lose, and it appeared to him that of the two, the latter had the best right to the property.

The public prosecutor was about to call witnesses, when the prisoner begged to save trouble to retract her for plea of “not guilty,” and pleaded “guilty;” She then handed in a paper, the contents of which did not transpire, and commenced a very long and pitiful story about having a family - being ill-treated by her husband - driven to the commission of the offence through poverty; and so on. His Honor advised her not to plead guilty under any impression that she would be more leniently dealt with and in consequence, than she would if she stood her trial. She however persisted, and a verdict of guilty was recorded accordingly.

Pedder C.J. and Montagu J., 24 July 1839

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 2 August 1839 [2]

            Ann Kevil for unlawfully pawning, 6 weeks in the female House of Correction, his Honor stated that she acted wisely in pleading guilty, as the case was too clear to admit of doubt. That since her conviction she had sent to him a statement; with a view to work upon his compassion, of her having been driven to the commission of the offence by distress and want, occasioned by the illtreatment of her husband, who she alleged spent all in drink which should have been devoted to the maintenance of her family. This statement his Honor observed he did not believe, as he had made enquiries, the result of which convinced him, that however bad her husband might be, she was equally bad if not worse, and that his misconduct had its origin in hers. It was only an account of her children that he was induced to look with any degree of indulgence upon her case. She had subjected herself to fine or imprisonment; or both, but it would be useless to fine a person in her circumstances, and it would be a hard case upon her children to imprison her for any length of time, at the same time to allow her to escape without punishment, or with only a nominal one, was impossible. His Honor then felt a difficulty in disposing of her, but under the most lenient view of the matter, he must sentence her to be confined in the female House of Correction for 6 weeks.

The court then adjourned till 12 o’clock.

Notes