AFTER A PARTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 171, 21 July 1936, Page 5

AFTER A PARTY.

ATTEMPTED BURGLARY

YOUNG MAN'S OFFENCE

WARNING BY JUDGE,

A plea for leniency on account of the prisoner's youth, his own and his family's unblemished record, and the fact that lie had, been to a drinking party, was made by Mr. Sullivan, counsel for Charles Frederick Stewart, when the latter pleaded guilty at the Supreme Court this morning to attempted burglary of a shop in Dominion lload.

After stressing that Stewart was only 22 years old, counsel said that lie was on his way at 4.30 in the morning to do some work on a boat when he attempted to prise open the back window of the shop. He was carrying in a sugar nag a torch, gloves, and screwdriver which he was going to use 011 the boat. Stewart had been to a party where a keg of beer had been consumed. Mr. Sullivan referred to evidence in the Lower Court that prisoner had done queer things when under the influence of Honor. Evidence was then given that Stewart had attended a party of eight, where a five-gallon keg had been consumed, between 8 p.m. and 1 a.m. "Stewart had had a considerable amount," suggested counsel to the witness. His Honor: It depends 011 how much was left. The Witness: Xot a drop. "Something of Drunken Folly." As a general rule, stated his Honor, he found it very difficult indeed to think that he was doing right to admit to probation a person, however good his record might be, who had attempted by night to break and enter. His Honor said he could recall only one previous occasion where he had taken that course, and 011 that occasion he was satisfied that the offence was a drunken folly. He \va» prepared to take the view that this case was something of that class, though he was not entirely satisfied about the possession of the torch, gloves, screwdriver and sugar bag. He was not entirely satisfied that there was not some thought of breaking and entering. Even if that were so he would take the view, in the light of prisoner's history and the queer things that he had done in the past, that he would not have acted as he did were it not for drink. Great mischief might be done by sending him to gaol. Stewart* was admitted to two years' probation 011 the condition that he abstained from liquor. Concerning liquor, said the judge, the probation officer would exercise his reasonable discretion. There would be a further condition that the costs of the prosecution should be met. In a final warning his Honor said that Stewart would find that probation was not an entire escape from punishment, and that it involved a severe re- , trenehment of liberty. If Stewart came I before the Court again for a breach of j his probation, he would be punished I for that breach and also for his present offence.