TWO YEARS’ GAOL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 63, Issue 247, 29 July 1943, Page 4

TWO YEARS’ GAOL

ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CASE. “NUISANCE TO SOCIETY” COMMENT BY THE JUDGE. TIMARU, This Day. Three men, who were jointly arraign--1 ed before Mr Justice Nortlicroft at the Supreme Court on Tuesday were found not guilty on a charge of alleged robbery with violence, but after a retirement of two hours the jury found them guilty when the trial was completed yesterday, of a charge of assault, and of theft. A sentence of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed on each of the- prisoners, two of whom were described by his Honor as a “nuisance to society.” Patrick James Houlihan, aged 26, John Francis Magneil, aged 57, and Frederick John Wormald, aged 48, three labourers, were pointly charged: (1) That at Rakaia on July 6, 1943, Being together, they robbed Allan James Brown of a wallet of the value of Is, one 10s note, the sum of 6s Gd in silver and -a tin of tobacco valued at 2s, and at the time- of such robbery used personal violence to Brown. (2) That they had stolen the money and articles from Brown. (3) That they had assaulted Brown. Accused, for whom Mr M. A. Raymond had been instructed by his Honor to appear, pleaded not guilty to the fast and third charges. Houlihan and Wormald pleaded guilty to the second charge, and Magneil not guilty. The Crown solicitor (Mr W. D. Campbell) prosecuted. ' Opening for the defence, Mr Raymond contended that the incident had arisen as -a result of a certain amount of drinking and horse play. The four men had had a number of drinks and had demonstrated wrestling holds. After Brown had retired the others had taken a bottle of beer up to him and had offered him a drink. Brown got out of bed and sat on the edge, and lie and Houlihan had demonstrated further wrestling holds. Early in the evening the three accused had orj dered three bottles of beer each and | Brown had a couple of rounds with them. It was significant that when they later entered Brown’s room they had turned on the light. If they had gone there with criminal intent they I would not have done that. Plea for Prisoners. Houlihan gave evidence that they had gone to Brown’s room where lie 1 (witness) had opened a bottle of beer and they had all had a drink. They again commenced talking about wrestling and he had demonstrated holds on Brown. Brown accused Wormald of taking his wallet, and pushed him to the floor: Brown had been about to strike Wormald, but witness called out to him, “Don’t hit him,” and he had not done so. Cross-exafnined by Mr Campbell witness admitted that, he had had several previous convictions for theft. Magneil corroborated the evidence by Houlihan. j His Honor then summed up. The jury retired at 9.53 a.m., nndj returned exactly two hours later with j their verdict. I In a plea on behalf of the prisoners j ! Mr Raymond said it was the first oe- j casion on which Houlihan had been j before the Supreme Court. He was 2G. j and had had nine previous convictions, some of which involved dishonesty. He had had an unfortunate adolescence, I and at 13 ho had been placed under I the care of the Child Welfare Department. He had had liis first conviction frir theft on December 19, 1936, and since then lie had been more or loss in and out of trouble, largely owing to bad company and drink. It appeared that his actions in the present ease had been caused by the influence ol i drink. Mr Raymond asked his Honor to take into consideration Houlihan’. 1 - j comparative youth and his unfortunate I upbringing. Referring to Wormald, Mr Raymond | said he had appeared only once be- | fore the Supreme Court, which had been in 1914. Ho had had nine proviI ous convictions, the last on two j charges of theft on April 21, 1943. In I His case lie liacl a bad record, but bis lapse from grace bad also been owing to drink. In the last 20 years this was only the second occasion when lie bad been before the Court on a crime involving dishonesty. Magneil had a long list of previous convictions. His iirst offence, had been in 1929. Magneil had requested him to hand in a written statement to the Court, which said myro than counsel could on his behalf. A Merciful View. Addressing the accused, his Honoi said that the jury had taken the merciful view of their olfeuce. and had 1 found them guilty of theft and not ol robbery with. violence; but they had j committed assault with tlndt. and so j lie must take a serious view of tlie j matter. Wormald must be regarded as a social nuisance, as lie had a list ; ul previous convictions, including lighting and resisting the police. “You. Houlihan, are only 26,” continued Jus Honor. “You have had 14 convictions of various crimes in the last seven years, mostly for dishonesty. You might he serving your country, but while in the Army you were evidently as had a soldier as you are a ! citizen, as you were convicted pn two military charges and were sentenced to 42 and 90 days’ confinement. “You have a long record, Magneil, In six years you have had 39 com ic-- j lions of a variety of crimes, mostly! dishonesty, -and. like Wormald. you | must he regarded as a social nuisance,” s commented his Honor. It was the I first time they had acted together, and j it was clear that I hey had raided! Brown’s room and broken open Brown’s I suit-case, although they had not been j charged with that offence. He must I take a. grave view of their offences. Each of Iho prisoners was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with haTd j labour. j