THE UNFAITHFUL SERVANT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 61, 12 March 1915, Page 6

THE UNFAITHFUL SERVANT.

BETRAYAL OF HIS TRUST. ______ TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. William Charles Hutchings came forward for sentence before Mr. Justice Stringer, at the Supreme Court this morning-, in connection with the eeries oi chaTges of embezzlement of money belonging to the Sun Insurance. Company, to which he had pleaded guilty. Mr. J. C. Martin, appearing for the prisoner, stated that lie had been in receipt of a salary of from £300 to £375 r>er year during the past four or five yeans. He had not led v vicious ot a dissipated life, and had shown no vicious propensities whatever. Counsel had gone very carefully into the prisoner's affaire, and had come to the conclusion that prisoner had no realisation whatever of wfliat ho had been spending. His constant expenditure had amounted to between .£SOO and £600 a year. In addition to this he had spent on hie house, apparently without any eensc of what he wxe doing, the sum of £150 in permanent improvement. Another instance of his extravagance was the purchase of expensive bicycles for his boys to use in going to and from school. He had ehovvn an utter lack of mental or moral responsibility regarding his actions. Hutchings had further spent very large eume in medical expenses, neither he nor hie wife or children being strong. Prisoner had indulged in the use of drugs since an operation for appendicitis, and counsel suggested that this habit had blunted his moral sense. That was the only thing to account for his irresponsible expenditure beyond ibis means. Prisoner was 4ti yeare of age, wae in weak health, and had three children, of whom the eldest was 16 years of age.

The Crown Solicitor (the Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C.), said that the prisoner was a man of education, who had occupied a position of great truet. He had embezzled the sum of £1,700 in four years, and after making all allowance for known extravagance there wae a. cum of dose upon £300 peT year unaccounted for.

Mr. Justice Stringer agreed with counsel that It wae an extremely painful case. If he could feel himself justified, he said, in dealing with it as a matter applying only to thie particular individual, he would agree with counsel that the prieoneT had already suffered the greatest punishment he could have. But there was a duty to the general pulJlic, and punishment must be exemplary a$ well as punitive. Thie man had systematically robbed Jiie employers and concealed his frauds by the falsification of his books, lie would be sentenced to twp years' imprisonment with hard labour.