On Tuesday 28th January 1879 at Alloa Sheriff Court before Sheriff Tyndall Bruce Johnstone, Helen Patterson, wife of Joseph Bain, stood in the dock, accused of theft.
Three years earlier she had been convicted of theft and jailed for 12 months. She was now accused on one count of stealing a tweed coat belonging to her son Robert Bain, an apprentice baker, at their home on 31st October 1878.
The second count was that she had taken a pair of leather shoes belonging to Robert on 10th January 1879. She pleaded not guilty but did admit taking them, although claimed she was going to replace them.
Robert took the stand and stated he had complained to the police about his mother pawning his coat and a pair of his boots, both of which he had paid for, identifying the articles when they produced in court.
He said his mother generally took things from the house when she had been drinking. Both he and his father frequently complained to her about it.
Mrs Thomson, a neighbour, also took the stand and told the sheriff Mrs Bain had asked her to pawn a coat and pair of boots at Thomas Mullen’s pawnbroker’s shop in Alloa. She was given 4s 6d for the coat and 3s for the pair of boots and a cotton sheet. Mrs Bain paid her a small fee for doing this.
Mullen and his assistant confirmed Mrs Thomson’s story. He claimed that if he had known they had come from Mrs Bain, he would not have accepted them as he knew she had been convicted of theft.
Sergeant Dewar confirmed the previous conviction of Mrs Bain.
Asked if she had anything to say, Mrs Bain told the sheriff that her son’s property was as much hers as his. She said he was only an apprentice baker and claimed the articles had been bought by her husband Joseph. She also stated that she had intended to bring them back to the house before he needed them.
The sheriff told her it was a sad state of affairs to see a woman of her age in the position she was now in. He went on that he had no doubt the coat and boots had been pawned so she could buy alcohol, but that it was a simple case of theft.
Having been convicted in October 1875 of the same offence, he felt he had no choice but to give her a custodial sentence of 60 days imprisonment. As in that previous case, she pretended to fall faint, but was hastily taken from the court to begin her sentence.
Share