DISHONEST SERVANTS.

NZ Truth, Issue 234, 18 December 1909, Page 7

DISHONEST SERVANTS.

NO LENIENCY FOR LOOTERS'

The Case of Archibald Mays.

Another Victim to Gambling.

Dishonest young men, who Plead for mercy and attribute their downfall to the too prevalent vice of gambling, cannot hope now tqr escape gaol as punishment for their peculations. In the past, a sword of Damocles m the shape of being ordered to come up for sentence, when called upon, has been hung over the heads of delinquents, it being hoped that this mode of punishment and the exercise of the threat that future crime ■would be severely punished, would deter others from touching their employer's cash. Unhappily, m many cases m years that have passed, the extension of clemency to dishonest employees has reduced the administration of Justice to a far.cc. If not a farce, m many instances the exercise of clemency has been almost a scandal, and quite a number of instances can be quoted WHERE HYPOCRITICAL HUMBUGS, who really led double lives, for a series of serious depredations were allowed to go" scot free, while others, friendless and. without influence of any' kind, have baen sent to gaol without any fuss whatever. These scandals m the past few years are, it seems,' not going to be repeated. For some time past, our Supreme Court judges, m every case where dishonest employes have been brought before them (notwithstanding the pleadings of counsel to treat the accused as first offenders, and to order them to come up for sentence when called upon ; m face of the fact that the accused had hitherto borne exceptional characters ; disregarding altogether the almost everyday cry that gambling was at the bottom of it), have been unanimous m declaring that it is out of question that any accused should, escape the consequence of his acts. In every case that has come before the judges, and some have been extremely painful, and even earned for accused the sympathy of their Honors, gaol has followed, so that it seems that the day has gone by when a dishonest servant can hope to avoid the disgrace of gaol. Magistrates, however, have not been so unrelenting, but at the S.M.s Court, Mr Riddell tias indicated that, that so far a3 dishonest servants are concerned,' gaol, and not a (fine, or an order TO COME UP FOR SENTIfiNUE when called on, can be expected. The magistrate made that clear yesterday (Friday) morning, when he sentenced a young man named Archibald Mays to 21 days' imprisonment on a charge of stealing £15, the property of Messrs Whitcombe and Toombs. To the charge, Mays, who was welldressed, and was represented by Mr A. L. Herdman, pleaded guilty. OhietDetective Broberg said that the theft of the money had extended from October "31 to Nov. 30. Accused was employed as a shopman m Messrs Whitcombe and Tombs, Lambton-quay, and had confessed his offence. He had £22 m the Savings Bank, and had drawn £15 and hau refunded the amount stolen. Nothing was previously known of the accused. For Mays, Mr Herdman stated that the accused had gambled and had yielded to temptation. Several witnesses would come forward and testify to Mays' previous good character. Mr Herdinsm also read a letter from Mr Arnold, the visiting Justice to the Terrace gaol, who had seen Mays m priscn pending sentence, and of whom he said, "that he was a foolish young fellow who wanted somebody to guide him and not of the class likely to get into trouble again." Mr A.rnoM promised to help Mays should the magistrate liberate him. The S.M., m. sentencing Mays, to 21 days' imprisonment, saM that no doubt this offence would be the last • Mays would ever be charged with. The oifence, however, was not an isolated one. The , thefts had extended over a period of a month and amounted to a considerable sum. The Court was always prepared to extend leniency to first offenders, but it had to be guided by the action of the Supreme Court m similar cases of young men who had gambled, which showed that it was not always proper to take a too-lenient view of such matters. This was not so much so regarding the individual himself, but as a warning to other individuals. The loss of position and the loss of character was often a severe penalty to a person charged, but it required something more AS A WARNING TO OTHERS placed m such positions as the accused. Although his Worship would be glad to treat the case leniently, he must impose a sentence of imprisonment. It is always a sad thing to see a young and respectable man, such as Mays undoubtedly was, m the criminal dock, charged with dishonesty, and it is still MroSe unfortunate for him that he should be singled out as a deterring example for others. Gambling seems to . be the vice that is responsible for our gaols being filled. Apart, however, from that aspect, it seems that Mays, when der tccted stealing the sum of 2s 6d, at ■onoe made a full and frank confession of Ms petty peculations. He offered to refund the sum of £13, which he admitted having stolen, recognising, of course, that he would be dismissed. Instead of afc once sending for a police officer, young Mays was allowed to. go, and he went down to Ohristchurch to see the head of the firm and to implore mercy. He saw the head of the firm, and confessed to him his foolish acts, and was requested to come back. When he came back a detective was on the scene and the young fellow was then arrested and locked up. He was brought Ito Wellington, and when brought before Mr Riddell, S.M., earlier m the week, pleaded guilty. He was then remanded till Friday for sentence. He remained m prison till Thursday, and, as stated, came up for sentence, with the result that he was sent to prison.