A SERIES OF CHARGES.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 257, 29 October 1889, Page 8

A SERIES OF CHARGES.

A youth of 20 years of age named David Maxwell Heron appeared at tho Police Court this morning before Dr. Giles, R.M., to answer to four indictments, embodying fifteen charges of embezzlement, dating from the 16th of September. The sums were all small, the total amount being under £5.

Mr S. Hesketh appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty to all the charges. Inspector Broham stated that the accused was employed as assistant to Mr Michael Briggs, butcher. His duties were to deliver orders and receive payment on behalf of his employer. Out of the 15 charges 13 were connected with tho accounts of a Mrs Hurndall. The original bills were made by Mr Briggs, but these were suppressed by the accused, who made out other bills without showing 'the balance carried forward. The whole amount was under £5. Mr S. Hesketh said that there was no doubt thab the defendant had taken certain sums of money belonging to Mr Briggs, but the amount was small and tho case was nob so black as ib appeared. He had no hesitation in applying that the accused should be admitted to probation. Dr. Giles : But this is a series of offences extending over several months. Mr Hesketh admitted thab such was the case, and quoted the ruling of His Honor Mr Justice Conolly at the Supreme Court in the case of Regina v. Morrow, in which a series of embezzlements was still considered as the first appearance of the defendant in Court, and consequently as a first offence. In that case there were six indictments embodying eighteen charges. Mr Hesketh mentioned that the Chief Justice was also consulted by Mr Justice Conolly before giving his decision. Mr Hesketh also urged the previous good character of the accused and his youth. Dr. Giles said : " I think this falsification of the documents considerably alters the case." Mr Reston, Probation Officer, here handed in his report. After reading this His Worship remarked that the report of the Probation Officer was certainly • not favourable, as ib did not contain any recommendabion. Ib was partly based on the previous character of the accused from what was known of his habits, and partly from the nature of the present charges. He was himself clearly of opinion that this was not a case that ought bo be brought under the Firsb Offenders' Probation Acb. Whatever might have been done by the Supreme Court in the case quoted would, of course, have due weight with himself, but this was quite a different case. In the one quoted there were a series of charges presumably committed within a shorb period, but here there had been a systematic series extending over six monbhs and combined with deliberate falsification of the accounts. That showed deliberabe criminal intention on the part of the accused. He thought thab while this Act was very valuable us'ft means of affording young persons another chance of reforming, still on the other band it would be sadly abused if it got about amongst young people that they did not incur any real peril for crime ; that they might commit a series of offences, and when discovered would merely be put under police surveillance for a short period. Such a state of affairs would be productive of great evil. He should consider tho case during the adjournment and give his decision ac 2 o'clock.

When the Court resumed Mr Hesketh read a few testimonials as to the previous good character of the accused. Dr. Giles eaid it was with reluctance thab he refused bo adopt the provisions of the First Offenders Probation Act. He was desirous to make the sentence as light as was consistent with justice, and after due consideration he had decided to sentence him to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.