South Yorkshire Times, April 1st, 1944
Thurnscoe Woman Teacher
Not Guilty on Stealing Charges
Ethel Pilmer, 56, teacher of Thurnscoe, was found not guilty at the Leeds Assizes on Friday of stealing a tablecloth, three one-third pint milk bottles, two cloth bibs, and a quantity of crockery, and of receiving some of the articles knowing them to have been stolen, and receiving a metal fork, value 1s.
Mr. Myles Archibald, for the prosecution, said Mrs. Pilmer had formerly been employed at Highgate Infants’ School and it was alleged that while there she stole the articles mentioned. He said that Miss Jarman, who was Headmistress at the school, called one day at Mrs. Pilmer’s house and noticed a tablecloth and bib similar to those used at the school. Later Miss Jarman communicated with the education authority, and on July 29th a policeman called at Mrs. Pilmer’s house and took possession of certain articles including three milk bottles. Mrs. Pilmer said, when interviewed by police about the tablecloth, ”it belongs to the school, but I brought it home to wash.” She explained she had taken milk to the school in three small bottles and brought milk back to her home in them.
Mr. G. H. R. Streatfield, who appeared for Mrs. Pilmer, and pleaded not guilty, said Mrs. Pilmer had lent milk to the school in bottles and had recouped herself for the loan. She had also grown bulbs and taken plants to the school for nature study classes. The fork she knew nothing about, and crockery which had been mentioned had belonged to her, and consisted of a broken plate or two.
Mr. Justice Hallett said to establish a charge of stealing it had to be proved that the articles were taken away with the intention of permanently depriving the owner. Regarding receiving, a mere irregularity would not be sufficient. A remark said to have been made by the accused, “I am not the only one; I hope you are going to see the others,” might mean that she was not the only one who had taken things home to have them washed. The judge said he would have to tell the jury that it would not be safe to convict. If the jury did not accept his advice , he expected that the accused would promptly appeal and he had not the least doubt that the Court of Criminal Appeal would take the same view as he did. It would not be safe to convict merely on the strength of an ambiguous statement by an excited woman. The accused was discharged as stated.