[stealing, from shop – prosecutor’s expenses, recovery of]

R. v. Cook

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

Montagu J., 7 March 1843

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 10 March 1843[1]

            William Cook was found guilty of having on the lst inst., stolen 71 silk handkerchiefs, valued at £17, the property of John Davies of Pontville.

            The prosecutor deposed that, at about eleven o’clock in the forenoon, the prisoner called at his store in company with others, and purchased a pair of braces. At a little after two on the same day witness missed the pieces of silk handkerchiefs (produced and identified) from off a shelf at the back of the counter. He supposed that the robbery must have been committed whilst the family were at dinner, as during that time the shop was left unguarded. Mr. Davies, accompanied by a constable, soon after went in search of the prisoner, whom he found lying near a creek at a short distance from his premises. The stolen property was folded about his person, and concealed by a red shirt which hung loosely about him. When taken into custody the prisoner said, “Well, Davies, I hope you’ll make it all right.”

            Robert Ethols, assigned servant to the above witness, had seen Cook enter the shop at two or three o’clock in the afternoon of the day referred to in the information. He was going for a cask of water, and did not take any particular notice of him.

            Evidence was given of the apprehension, as also of the state in which he was found, which was described as one of exhilaration, but not of absolute intoxication.

            The prisoner, when called on for his defence, assured the jury that he had been drinking during the whole morning, and was so tipsy that he could remember neither his entrance into Mr. Davies’s shop nor his subsequent apprehension.

            Mr. Justice Montagu, when passing sentence, said - But for the temptation which the carelessness of Mr. Davies holds out to the commission of similar offences, I should most certainly have passed on you the extreme penalty which the law has provided in such cases; as it is, I shall sentence you to seven year’s transportation, a portion of which time shall be spent at Port Arthur. As to you, Mr. Davies, I think it right that you should not be allowed any expenses; this forms the third of fourth case of larceny committed on your premises within the last few months; and if a storekeeper will not take the necessary means for the protection of his property in a colony such as this, and especially in Pontville, it cannot be expected that the public money can be squandered for that purpose.

            Mr. Davies remarked, that there was hardly a constable in the settlement for the protection of his inhabitants.

            His Honor. - Well, that forms only an additional reason why you should yourself be doubly watchful over your own property. You leave your store without even a bell or a dog to protect during the time that you are dining in another room. Could I understand that you had used any means for preventing the recurrence of such deeds I would grant your expenses; but contiguous as is your store to a public-house, about which men are continually prowling, it is natural that a knowledge of the little vigilance which you bestow on the protection of your property, should act as an incentive to the perpetration of crime.