"NOTHING ALARMING."

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 128, 2 June 1927, Page 9

"NOTHING ALARMING."

CRIME IN AUCKLAND.

lt\ PASSING CIRCUMSTAHCE."

JUDGE HERDMAN'S DECLARATION.

HOUSE-BREAKERS GET FIVE YEARS. "It is said that crime is prevalent in Auckland, and you have helped materially ifl that belief. The operations of a couple of clever criminals will soon establish such an impression. Considering the extent of the Auckland police district, stretching as it does from the Korth Cape to Mercer, and from sea to eea, I don't think there is anything to fce alarmed about. Housebreaking has been prevalont lately, but this is only a passing circumstance. If those responsible for the investigations of crime ire supported intelligently and sympathetically from proper quarters, there will be little to fear."

This effective reply to Police Commissioner Mellveney's startling declaration that Auckland was reeking with crime, was furnished in the Supreme Court this morning, when Mr. Justice Herdman sentenced Jack Johnston (28) and Frank Bailer (24), who were largely responsible for the city's unsavoury reputation, to five years' imprisonment with hard labour, and declared them to be habitual criminals, on nine charges of breaking, entering and theft. Herbert Cooper, who was closely associated with the two dangerous criminals, received twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour, for one charge of theft.

Police Complimented. His Honor also took the opportunity of stating that, in the present case, the police deserved to be complimented upon their success in bringing the prisoners to justice. He observed that Bailer's record was a bad one. He had been convicted on similar charges in Auckland in 1920, for theft in Gisborne in 1923, and again in the same year at Auckland for breaking, entering and theft. In Johnston's he understood he was convicted at New Plymouth in 1918 for theft, for houaebreaking- the following year in the same town, .and for breaking and i itering and theft in Wellington in 1923. He had read letters put in by the accused men, and while there might bo some truth in them, the fact remained that he had their lists before him that showed for some years they had been leading criminal careers. In this connection he was referring to Johnston and Bailer.

"My business this morning is to determine what is an adequate punishment for the offences you have committed, and I have taken into account your past records, and the length to which you have gone in the way of overstepping the mark which separates the criminal from the law-abiding member of society," he added. "It is the duty of this Court to endeavour, by the punishment it metes out, to see that the safety of human beings end the safety of property is maintained. A few—a very few—members ■, of the community are more concerned about the housebreaker than they are about the house© wner whose property Ifas been Unlawfully seized. They think that it is more important to consider the thief than to protect the community from thieving. But the bulk of the people still think otherwise. They believe that order must be maintained and that a man's property, should be sacrosanct.

Daring and Dangerous.

"I find in studying your lists that two of you have been convicted of grave offences, such as crime which is particularly serious, as it runs hand in hand with crimes of violence. I look at the police reports and find that you are daring and dangerous criminals. The fact that you have committed the offences witlf which I have to deal confirms the police statement. I note that you have broken into a number of places, that you would not hesitate to use explosives, and that by unlawful means you have acquired property to the value of over £700. Your records show that you prefer to live by nefarious ways rather than with honesty." He then imposed the substantial penalties on Johnston and Bailer. In disposing of Cooper's case, he observed that the circumstances revealed in.it wero different from the rest. He had not previously been involved in B. .ca.se the feature of which was dishonesty. He had, however, been eonvrefced of obscene language, and had been dogely associated with the other two hien beside him in the dock. They had been living in his house, and he had beaded guilty to the theft of some of the articles stolen. He had not a serious record, and the sentence of the Court would be twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour.

' "Do you mind reconsidering that sentence—" and "May I say a word or two?" chorused Johnston and Bailer, but the only satisfaction they received was a peremptory demand from his Honor to bate the men removed from the dock.