WAIHI THEFT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 36, 10 February 1917, Page 6

WAIHI THEFT.

RESTITUTION OF MONET. NOT A GBOXJND FOR IJENIENCST. NINE MONTHS' IAIPRIBONMENXi The fact that during the past 15 or 20 years the tendency of the Court has been inclined more to mercy, and that it was better to make an honest citizen of a man instead of placing him in gaol, was urged by Mr. H. H- Ostler at the Supreme Court this morning, when Daniel Paul PhHlips, formerly Clerk of the Court at Waihi, appeared for sentence q» a charge of stealing £162, to which he 'had pleaded guilty in,the Lower Court. Mr. Ostler stated that the prisoner had married young, and from the beginning he had had an uphill struggle to make ends meet. He had four children,' and there had not 'been a period in his married life when he had not had sickness in the house. He struggled against it as long , as he could, but finally, finding himself overwhelmed with doctors* bills, chemists' bills, and other difficulties, euecumbed to temptation, and commenced to take money which he hoped to be able to replace. In August last he had actually commenced to restore the money, and up till Christinas had paid back £25. He had made a iull confession, and had sacrificed his superannuation fund, and sold his furniture in order to make restitution. Mr Ostler suggested that the oeee was one where the First Offenders' Probation Act might Ibe made to applyHis Honor replied that, in view of the fact that the defalcations bad been going on for a period of over twelve months thrie could not be done. **1 wonder," continued his Honor, "that people situated as the prisoner do not take advantage of the Bankruptcy Act. The law does not allow people to be cruelly oppressed for debt. But, instead, they take advantage of their employers." With regard to the fact of a man having made restitution, continued Iris Honor, it was a mane duty to do this. He did not ccc any merit in restoring etolen property if a man had the means to do it. If consideration were to Ibe given to this, it simply meant that a man with means could get off, while the poor man with no means could not. He did not see why a poor man should be differently treated because he could not make restitution. He would take into consideration the excellent character borne by accused, and the circumstances surrounding the case. Prisoner ■was sentenced 'to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour.