AT “FENCE" FIXED.

NZ Truth, Issue 59, 4 August 1906, Page 4

A T “FENCE" FIXED.

BURGLAR-BILKER O'NEILL BOOBBD.

The -Chief Justice m a Leuient Mood.

Big Lecture and Little Sentence.

Bill Sykes, Nancy and Fagin, those immortal characters of Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist," were personifiei m the Criminal Court last Monday when John William Lucas, a convicted and self-confessed housebreaker, came up for sentence. This as the bold burglar whose crime, involving the liberty of one John Thomas O*Neill. a second-hand dealer of Taranaki-street, was mentioned m "Truth's" columns last week. Lucas had m May, 1905, .burgled the residence of some: people named Penfold, m Thompson-street. The proceeds of his robbery was jewellery. This he swore he sold to O'Neill, who promised £2 and ga%'e him four shilling instead. When Lucas offered the jewellery to the fence he informed that Paganish individual it was stolen. O'Neill subsequently sold the jewellery to other • people; which led , to the polioe getting on the trail at; -last, their enquiries .-resultiajg in-Lucas' arrest. 'LUCAS PLEAD fcD GL'ILTY. m, the Police Court and was committed for sentence. He in' his turn peached on O'Neill and he was committed for trial for receiving- stolen property. At the Criminal Court last Monday Lucas came up for sentence.Mr Kirkcaldie appeared for him. and made an appeal for leniency for the sake of the prisoner's wife. She, it seems, was unaware that Lucas had a past, and a bad one, and her married life has not been of the best. The Chief Justice was m a lenient frame of mind and awarded "Bill Sykes"nine months' imprisonment. O'Neill, who pleaded not guilty to receiving the jewellery knowing it to be stolen, made a bold fight for his liberty, or at least Mr Wilford tdd for him. Metaphorically speaking:, viewing all the circumstances of the case. O'Neill had not a leg to stand on, but whatever could have been said m his favor was said. Lucas was. of course, mercilessly: : attacked; ami. 'O'Neill's acts of omission, "'which really were the strongest pointSa^ainsfc.him, were made to appear trivial, and the ABERRATIONS OF /'A MIN&V that had to have a prohibition bidder to steady it. When it : <Jaine to the summing up, the Chief Justice knocked Mr,Wilford's pins flying ; pointing out that there was.?. Very strong: case which could, have gone 'to the jury without the evidence 1 c? Lucas, and, having put the' only aspec.y j^Gs^"* sible to the twelve, good mc-ri aricpfcrue, his Honor asked -them It it w^'s. possible that any doubt could exist as to the prisoner's guilt. T~he jury took ovfcr an .hour :ts?.. decide the question -and t&en wanted to find him guilty di selling jewellery which he knew to have been stolen.. This of course was no verdict. If\ the Judge, pointed out, he knew it was stolen when he (O'Neill) sold the jewellery,- was it not possible that O'Neill knew, it was stolen when he bought it from; Lucas ; .at a.,, time the detectives had warned him.,: that the jewellery had been; stolen from' Penfold 's place and friyen. him a full description of it ?. Then, the jury decided (juickly; - "(Juii-t^ :^as the verdict returned, The prisoner, weeping copiously, was then remanded foir sentence till the following, day.. On Tuesday morning, when O'Neill was brought up for sentence, Mr Wilford asked leave to call a witness on the prisoner's behalf. The witness m question was Solicitor P. J: Q'Reeran, who said that he had known th* "fence" for over five years. During the last two or three years he had atfven way , ' V TO INTEMPERANCE, and he (Mr O'Regan) 'had spoken to him about it. Latterly O'Neill had had a prohibition order taken out against him and that was responsible for a change m his conduct. ! Mr Wilford,, m asking for lenience for O'Neill, said that it, was perfectly, possible that through O'Neill's intemperate habits he had become very lax m his methods of business^ and that had led to his downfall. His business was now ruined ; his license would be cancelled and his future would depend on whatever sentence his Honor might imporc. The offeace was a serious one nnd it was not possible to ignore the verdict of the jury. If there were no receivers there would be no facilities or inducements for thieves TO COMMIT CRIMR The accused had never been before thu Court before, except on a prohibition order. In sentencing O'Neill to six months' imprisonment, the Chief Justice said that it .was not one acfc, but various acts which led to the commission o£ the crime, and O'Neill knew very well what he was doing. For his offenc* he was", liable to seven years' imprisonment, whereas for larceny two .years' TNmishmerit was provided by Jaw. Drunkenness was no excuse for crime., Drink tended , to weaken a nian's will power and he- fell mora readily than another. Hiir HoncE hoped that when O'Neill was released from prison he would resolve to ei''e up drink, if he wished to leada happy life. As it was his frrsf offenc* be would pass only a nominal sfcut-:" ence. • ~ O'Neill may consider himself extremely lucky that Sir Robert, fcodk the lenient view of his offence that he did. Undoubtedly it was a vcrv bad, case, for not only did the fence 'receive the stolen property, well knowing it to be stolen, but. he brutallT bilked the burglar and lied to the no* lice about -the "stuff." Ivvsirtos.- nmninglv entering the purchase- )'n his book as though he hnd receive.! it fully a month before be was warnfcß of the theft and furnisne-rt with ;>. description of the .articles. In fare <>S all these circumstances he ni.ieht w~U have (rot at least an pr.nai sontwaa with the crib-crackinc Srkps, i,w:as.