SUPREME COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 137, 22 March 1930, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. NO CONVICTION RECORDED. (Special to the “Guardian.”) CHRISTCHURCH, March 21. ' Two prisoners appeared before Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court this morning. They wore: Frederick Henry Bowlev, two charges of housebreaking, with theft. Kathleen Jennie Dodd, on a charge of concealing the birth of a child. Kathleen Jennie Dodd (Mr van Ascii) appeared first. Mr van Asch said that the prisoner now realised the gravity of the offence to which she had pleaded guilty. There were, however, circumstances which, loounsel would suggest, would make conviction and an order to come up for sentence if called upon a suitable punishment. The medical evidence showed that prisoner was in a highly strung state for days, possibly weeks after the event. She .practically did not know what she was doing. The Probation Officer’s report, counsel understood was favourable. His Honor said that he was satisfied on the facts before him that the Probation Officer’s report was right. The Probation Officer who had a great deal of experience and did her work very conscientiously, made a recommenda-tion-to wliich effect would be given. A conviction would not be recorded, but prisoner would be ordered to come up for sentence if called on within tyelve months. Frederick .Henry Bowley appeared for sentence on two charges of house- - breaking with theft. * The prisoner said that at about the time the offences were committed he was drinking very heavily. In August last he was placed on probation, and fulfilled the terms of the order. He went to work on the Blenheim railway under the. Public Works Department. At Christmas time the work was suspended, and' with some other men, he started to drink heavily. Coming to Christchurch; he tried to effect a reconciliation with his people. * Mr Brown for the Crown said that ‘according to the Probation Officer’s ref>ort prisoner’s trouble was not entirey clue to drink. He had a long list, starting in 1921 and there were regular instances of theft.

His Honor said that prisoner had a fairly long list. He came before the Court with a record showing quite-' a number of convictions for theft. There v/ere four for theft and also convictions for assault and other minor matters. The Probation Officer’s report showed that it would he quite improper to apply the terms of.the Act. On each charge, the prisoner was sentenced to twelve months’ imprison-ment,-the sentences to be concurrent. “The prisoner ought to be warned','’ said his Honor, “that if he comes before the Court Again, he is liable to be declared an habitual criminal.”