THEFT OF GOODS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 214, 10 September 1934, Page 9

THEFT OF GOODS.

TWO YOUNG MEN. ONE GIVEN HARD LABOUR. " CAREFULLY-PLANNED SYSTEM." Sentence' of three years' imprisonment with hard labour was imposed by Mr. Justice Fair at the Supreme Court this morning on Douglas Russell Newman, aged 27, who admitted thefts from his employers, the Farmers' Auctioneering Company, extending over a period of three years, and involving the sum of £1200. Keith Bryson, who admitted receiving tlie stolen goods, was sentenced to two years' reformative derontion. In imposing, sentence, his Honor commented that the fact that tl.e two prisoners were members of raspejtablu families aggravated rather than mitigated the seriousness of their offence. Mr. Tong, on behalf of Newman, sa"id that he was a first ollcnder, and that his character hitherto had been unblemished. Prisoner asked for u chance to rehabilitate himself. Mr, Tong said that Hie evidence showed a slackness in the system of the firm which employed Newman, which might have contributed considerably to the jffenees which brought him before the Court. While punishment of crime was a deterrent to others, indissolubly linked with punishment was its reformative effsst. His Honor: The offences extended over three years, and were committed at an age when prisoner fully appreciated the consequences. Mr. Tong: If ho had been found out in the initial stages; no doubt ' your Honor would have granted him probation. Bryson's Part. Mr. Singer, on Bryson's behalf, said there was a distinction between the two prisoners, in that Bryson was ignorant of the scheme until some time after it had been put in force. He foolishly fell to the temptation to assist in the scheme for part of the period. His Honor: The period in which lie assisted was two years. Mr. Singer said that Bryson had some time ago realised the wrongfulness of his action, and had ceased to have any association with the scheme. He was a married man with two young children, and he and his wife were members of respectable and well-known families. If his Honor could not see his way clear to grant probation, counsel urged that a short period of detention be inflicted. His Honor said that it was impossible in a case of this kind to grant probation. It had been put forward by counsel for both prisoners that they came from respectable families, but ho did not know that that mitigated their offence; it rather aggravated it. The fact that their parents were of good standing in the community should have assisted them to lead good lives. Newman had had ample time to consider the seriousness of what lie was doing. His was a carefully planned system. He would be sentenced to three years' hard labour. Bryson's case was rather different, his Honor said. Apparently he had been induced by Newman to join in the plan and share in the proceeds. He had made an attempt to reform, but his crime must be met by a period of imprisonment, too. He would be sentenced to two years' reformative detention.