SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 188, 9 August 1924, Page 6

SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE

- STOLEN GOODS RECEIVER. 5 WOLFE GETS TWO YEARS. J WOULD lIAYE BEEN" MORE SEVERE. I t "Had it not been for the jury s ' recommendation to leniency, the sen- ■ ! tence I should have passed wou d have ' I been much more severe," said Mr. Jua- ' tire Stringer in the Supreme Court ■ to-day, when passing sentence of two > years' imprisonment on William Henry » Wolfe, master painter, who was found guilty on two charges of receiving i stolen goods valued'at £48. Prisoner bought the goods from a . voun" man named Harland, who had ! previously been in the employ of the ' Jinn of Hill and Plummer. On leaving i I the firm, Ilailand retained a key, and • subsequently paid visits to the warci house, where he committed theft on a • iiumher of occasions. A woman gave . Wolfe a message over the telephone, . in consequence of which he secreted *ome of the goods which he had pur- ! chased from Harland at a price well , below the trade value. When interviewed by detectives, Wolfe did not at : first disclose the whereabouts of all the soods. Later, he did so. Mr. Luxford asked his Honor to remember that Wolfe stood in the dock • as a first offender. Witnesses of reput- ' able character would be called to testify to his previous good behaviour. I'rior to this offence, prisoner had lived a straight ami honest life. ! After hearing several witnesses, the judge said it seemed apparent that nothing was known against prisoner except the present offence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr. V. R. Meredith) reminded his Honor of the fact that thefts from warehouses in Auckland were becoming far too common. One warehouse—that of Messrs. Turnbull and Jones, Ltd.—reported the loss of £1600 worth of goods, and another" Turnbull and Jones, Ltd. —reported the the loss of £1000 worth. This was serious. While there were men who laid themselves open to receive goods which had been dishonestly obtained, thieving from employers would continue. His Honor said there could be no doubt that a receiver of stolen goods ill a community was a distinct menace, and it seemed clear that there would be very much less dishonesty among employees if it were not for the class that was ready to receive stolen goods. I That being so, his Honor would consider it his duty in the ordinary ease to inflict a very severe penalty indeed. However, there were some mitigating circumstances in this case, and the jury had returned a recommendation to leniency. I The jury had explained that, as Wolfe was a foreigner, he might not fully appreciate the crime of receiving , , and the evil consequences which followed it. This was quite a reasonable way of looking- at the case. At the same time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the recommendation to leniency, a substantial sentence would have to be imposed. Prisoner would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment.