THE JOHNSTON CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 122, 24 May 1901, Page 5

THE JOHNSTON CASE.

Henry Johnston, lute managing director of the Kauri Timber Company at Auckland, was brought up for sentence at the Supreme Court yesterday before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly. Johnston had pleaded guilty to charges of obtaining £500 from the Kauri Timber Company by means of false pretences, and of stealing the same, and also of obtaining from the company by fraud the sum of £750, mutilating n voucher guard book, and mutilating and concealing a receipt, the property of the corn-

pany. Mr Fred Earl appeared on behalf of the prisoner, and made a very eloquent speech of over an hour's duration. His Honor in passing sentence said that this was certainly a very painful case to him and to all others concerned. The prisoner's counsel, Mr Earl, had made a most telling1 and eloquent speech, but counsel must have felt throughout that there could have been no excuse for these crimes, these thefts and false pretences committed by the prisoner. It had been suggested to him that he should admit the prisoner to probation or otherwise deal with the prisoner instead of sending1 him to gaol. His Honor, however, regretted to say that he felt it was impossible in this case to deal with the case in that manner. "How could I sit here," he said, "with any decency and perhaps send some man to goal for stealing a few pounds or a few shillings, under circumstances of even distress and trouble, and at the same time look over an offence of a man in such a position as 3 rours, a man who should have been practically independent but who. has pleaded guilty to stealing these large sums of money? The fact of the money having been returned was immaterial. It was with very great grief that he (His Honor) had to sentence the prisoner, but he should not be doing his duty if a person in prisoners position were to be treated differently from one in an inferior position. The fact of the position which prisoner held, and the estimation —false estimation — in which he was held only made the case worse. He must treat prisoner precisely as he would deal with any other per-

son who hud pleaded guilty to such offences, but who might not be able to get counsel 1o make an eloquent speech. There was nothing before the Court to show how prisoner had got into this position. The offences to which 'he had pleaded guilty were very serious. The sentence of the Court was that the prisoner be imprisoned in Auckland Gaol and kept to hard labour for three years.