A Christchurch Adventuress. (Press, 6 April 1888)

On 6 April 1888, at the City Police Court in Dunedin, Amy Maud Bock, a young woman of genteel appearance, was charged with obtaining goods under false pretences. The offence took place on 31 March 1888 in Kensington, where she acquired smelling salts, perfumery, violet powder, and other items valued at £1 9s 6d from Peter Dutton, a chemist, with the intent to defraud. Bock pleaded guilty to the charge. Evidence presented at the court revealed Bock's troubled history. In July 1887, she had been remanded to the Lookout Point Industrial School from Wellington for six months under the First Offenders' Probation Act. While in Wellington, she had previously engaged in deceitful activities, obtaining money and goods through similar fraudulent means. Despite her past, authorities failed to oppose her case being treated under the First Offenders Act since they were unaware of her previous convictions in Christchurch. Upon arrival at Port Chalmers, Bock had convinced a sergeant there of her unfortunate plight, leading him to take her into his home during her wait for the train to Dunedin. Bock quickly gained the trust of the sergeant's daughter, leading to a close bond. While at the industrial school, she expressed a desire to reach out to relatives, which resulted in a letter allegedly from an aunt in New South Wales, claiming she wanted to see Bock before going home and offering to send money for her travel. Sceptical of the letter, Mr Titchener, the school's manager, conducted a discreet inquiry into its authenticity, leading to a telegram sent to Christchurch to verify whether the named individuals actually existed. The response confirmed that neither a Mrs Merry nor any association with her existed. On the day Bock attempted to extort travel funds from Mr Titchener, he revealed the telegram that exposed her deception. Faced with the evidence, Bock initially denied any wrongdoing but eventually confessed to her past conviction in Christchurch, having been sentenced to one month for similarly obtaining goods through deception. She admitted to writing the letter supposedly from her aunt in the institution, claiming an accomplice had helped but refusing to reveal their identity. Dr Hislop, a visiting trustee, concluded that it would be unwise to keep Bock at the institution since her term of detention had expired. Following her discharge, Mr Titchener took an interest in her well-being, finding her lodgings and ensuring she was looked after. The case drew amusement in court, especially with Mr Titchener's witticisms regarding her ability to craft such deceptions. The bench decided to adjourn the hearing for seven days to allow for a medical examination of Bock's mental state, during which she acknowledged that her actions might be indicative of a mania. Titchener defended her by asserting that, while her behaviour might seem mad, there was indeed a method to her madness.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand