SENTENCE QUESTIONED.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 33, 8 February 1929, Page 10

SENTENCE QUESTIONED.

ALLEGATION BY COUNSEL " WHY NOT A FINE." GAOL FOR THEFT OF TOOLS. "Why the vindictiveness of this court when the charge has hardly been proved."' These words, loudly spoken, were addressed to Mr. \\". li.'McKean, S.M., at the Police Court this morning immediatelv after the magistrate sentenced Maurice Joseph Corkery (27 I, a polisher, to two months' imprisonment, for theft of tools. Mr. McKean intimated that he could see no reason for altering his decision. "Why not a fine in this case, sir? You are vindictive and 1 would respectfully suggest that you impose a line, for this man is married with two children, and they will be left destitute." Counsel then asked for security of appeal to be fixed, Mr. McKean replying by stating thai this could be done when the proper notice had lieen given. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that he wanted to know what the security for appeal would be, so that accused could find out if he could raise the money. Eventually tho magistrate said that if notice was given the security would be £10 10/. Corkery pleaded not guilty to four charges of stealing tools of a total value of £'J 8/t» belonging to four different men who worked at a eabinetmaking factory. Evidence was given that the ' tools were found to be missing on January 30, and that on Anniversary Day, January 29, Corkery was seen by two men getting over a fence at the rear of the factory. One witness saw him go in with three pieces of wood and leave the premises with the wood and a sugar bag which seemed to be rather heavy. When seen by a detective accused explained that a saw which he had in his possession had been lent to him }>y a man named Facoory. Facoory was then interviewed and he said that he had lent the saw to accused. This saw was identified by two men who worked in the factory as one that, had liecn taken from there.

Mr. Sullivan submitted that Facoory lent accused the saw, and (hat there was no evidence upon which to convict Corkery of theft. Corkery had certainly been in trouble previously, but that <!id not affect the matter before the court. Corkery, who previously worked at the factory, went there on Anniversary Day with some pieces of a gramophone cabinet which were warped. He went to see the manager to try and get the wood straightened. However* he did not touch or steal any of the tools. He went there because the manager lived on the premises. Counsel drew the court's attention to the fact that one witness, who identified the saw as another man's property, spoke of two marks in the form of X's stamped on either side of the saw, but made no reference to other initials which were engraved on it. although other witnesses did so. .\ search of accused's house had been made by detectives, and only one .saw was found. Thiu had been lent to accused. The other tools had not lieen found. Corkery had assisted the detectives to search his house.

Corkery gave evidence in which ho denied stealing any of the tools. Mr. Sullivan commented on the fact that although he had been interviewee', several times by detectives, Facoory had not been called by the police to give evidence, ounsel said it was important that he should have been called. Mr. McKcan: You can have him called if you want him, but you will have to subpoena him. Mr. Sullivan: That is for the police. They should place all t'u facts before the court. Chief Detective Hammond said that Facoory's statement wa- in court and could be reail out. Facoory had not been called because he could not carry the case any further. Mr. McKean said he was quite satisfied that Corkery stole the saw because of the marks engra\ed upon it and that it was found in his possession the dav after it was stolen. Further, he had been seen at the factory by two witnesses the day the tools were stolen. On one charge accused was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. The other three charges were dismissed.