TRIAL BY JURY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 136, 12 June 1933, Page 9

TRIAL BY JURY.

BOOKMAKERS' CHOICE.

JUDGE'S STERN COMMENT,

THREE MEN IMPRISONED

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) NEW PLYMOUTH, Saturday. In sentencing three bookmakers to imprisonment with hard labour, and ordering each of them to pay £-5 toward the cost of the prosecution, Mr. Justicc Heed to-day made stern comment 011 their action in electing trial by jury. The three men were: William Henry Lash, a married man with three children, of Stratford; Robert Mascall, aged 54, married, of New Plymouth; and Sidney Lovell, aged 41, married,. with five children. Lovell's counsel said his business was that of hairdresser and tobacconist, and the latter branch had been cut into during recent years by "cheap shops." He had adopted bookmaking 111 an attempt, to improve his position. First dealing with Lash, the judge said that' Lash could not be treated as one who 011 being caught had decided to take what was coming to him like a man by pleading guilty before a magistrate. "You havo deliberately flouted the law," said his Honor, "by systematically carrying 011 an unlawful business. That is a serious offence, but there is a considerable body of public opinion opposed to this law, and in view of that there is 110 doubt some excuse for sucli conduct.

' Twelve Honest Men.' "But you have 'made your case infinitely worse. You knew from the evidence in the lower Court that no honest man could conscientiously find you not guilty, but you deliberately elected to be tried by a jury in the hope and expectation that you might be able to get a jury or one or more members of a jury sufficiently unscrupulous and dishonest as to perjure themselves by disregarding the oath and secure a verdict of not guilty or a disagreement. "Fortunately for the reputation and integrity of tne Jury panel of this district you failed and 12 honest men found you guilty. In these circumstances it would be a breach of duty to let you escape with a line." The view which many of the public took of this law was to regard the offence as venial, the judge said. He took it the public did not approbate the effect of a jury disregarding its oath and the effect of tiiat on the administration of justice. He did not know whether the prisoner appreciated that, but he assumed he did not. The sentence of tho Court might be two years, so Lash could consider that in the sentence to be imposed, three months' hard labour, he was receiving lenient treatment. In sentencing Mascall and Lovcll, his Honor said the same general remarks applied. He took into account the fact that Lovcll, by now pleading guilty, had saved the cost of another trial. Lovell was sentenced to two months, | compared with three months for the t other two.

Strict Probation Terms. Frederick Charles Ilawkc, aged 43, married, with three children, of New Plymouth, for whom the jury had recommended leniency, was ordered to come up for sentence if called on within two years on the following conditions: — (1) Within a month pay £10 of the costs of prosecution; (2) take out prohibition order for two years, and during that time to abstain from taking intoxicating liquor and from loitering about licensed premises; and (3) during two years not to back a horse or lay odds. "I propose to endeavour to mako you follow some lawful occupation and find some other means of earning a livelihood," said his Honor to Ilawke. After setting out the conditions, ho warned the prisoner that if lie failed in the observance of any he would be brought up and would also lie punished for this offcncc. He had made the condition as to abstaining from making bets because of the difficulty of getting proof of bookmaking charges. He pointed out to the prisoner that it would be easy to prove a breach of any of the conditions which had been imposed. The eases disposed of to-day followed police raids carried out in New Plymouth, Stratford and Hawcra 011 March IS, when six arrests were made. One man chargcd elected to be dealt with by the lower Court, and a fine of £75 was imposed. Tho remaining case, following disagreement by the jury, will be heard next session.