A SEVERE SENTENCE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9817, 28 August 1897, Page 9

A SEVERE SENTENCE.

TO THE KDITOR OF THE FIIKS3. SfR, —If your correspondent " Fair Play " knows nothing about the case of which he writes ha should have observed a discreet Hileuce. For his information allow mc to .say that the question at issue wus not one of law, but of facts. The law allows .Justices to convict and discharge in cases of first offences where tho amount alleged to have been stolen doee not exceed live pounds. They may also, if the amount does not exceed forty shillings, inflict a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. Whsre the character of the accused is good, and the circumstances of the case show no criminal tendency or premeditation, imprisonment is never resorted to in these minor offences.

In the case under notice Messrs Cooper, J. P., and Gapes, J.l'., would not allow the unfortunate young fellow even the option of a smart five, but gave him a month's imprisonment tor removing, while he was ia a semi-unconscious state, two paltry articles worth about a shilling, but of no saleable value. Tho question is not what the Justices had power to do, but what they ought to have done tinder such circumstances, following the well-known practice of experienced and humane Justices and Magistrates. As no point of law was involved, and as the sentence did not exceed a month, there is no appeal. The accused might apply to the same Justices to re-hear hie case, but, with the certainty of refnsal, that course would be an idle one to adopt. I consider that a grave wrong, a wrong without precedent in our local Courts, was done, and I drew public attention to the fact. The. respectability of the anchors of the wrong affords no ground for silence in my opinion, if it does in that of " Fair Play. Tho Justices, Messrs Cooper and Gapes, did not take the character of the accused into consideration.

I may add that the statements in " Humanity's" letter are true. There was no evidence against tho second man, and he was not asked if he had any defence to the charge on which he was sentenced to a month. I felt inclined to put etiquette aside and point oat thtu to the Justices, bub had I bo presnmed, an imperative command from Mesere Cooper aiid Oapee, J.P.'e, not to "insult" the Bench, would probably have befn my award. Indeed, it was with difficulty that I induced the Bench to allow mc to call evidenoe as to charaoter for my own client. Regretting that " Fair Play's" letter has compelled mo to again trespass on your kindne33—Youre, &c, M. Donnelly. TO THE EDITOR OP THE PIIESS. Sin,—As a parent I wae much grieved and surprised on reading Mr Donnelly's letter in reference to the sentence passed on the young man Colehso by Meaera Cooper (Mayor) and Gapes (ex-Mayor) at the Police Court on Wednesday. Grieved, beoauee the young fellow, according to Mr Dounellv, wae the chief support of his mother, the father at present being an inmate of the Hospital.. Surprised that Messrs Cooper and Gapea should have acted in such a way as to warrant Mr Donnelly (nnd rightly too in my opinion) stating that the sentence was cruel. Igo further, and say thut it was a sentence (all surrounding circumstances considered) that no Stipendiary Magistrate or Judge of the Supreme Court would have passed. With that comfnendable charity which characterises the whole of the British public in giving everyone a chance J read in the New Zealand Statutes itnder the Indictable Summary Offences Jurisdiction Actthefollowing clause:—' 'Upon v first oonviotion the convicting Justices may, if thciy think fit, disl charge the offender upon h s making such substitution to . the party agsrieved for damages and costa or either of them as shall be ascertained by the Justices." Aocording to the newspapers, tiie value of the brewer's advertisements stolen, while the young fellow waa under the influence of Hquor, Was four shillings ! Forsooth, four shillings, in reality, 1 am informed, not worth 80 many coppers. Vet Messrs Cooper and Qapea exorcised their mighty prerogative and sentenced Cotehso to one month's imprisonment with hard labour. On the basis of that sentence I presunio, in the eyoe of the two mentioned J.P.'e, a theft, while under the inflnonce of liquor, of a hogshead of beer, would be punishable by a sentence of not lees than ten yeare' penal servitude, notwithstanding if the accused happened to be a first offender. If ho had previously appeared before tho llench, he could sorrowfully bid good-bye to the outer world, his friends and relations would havo seen the last oE him.

I must compliment Mr Donnelly for bringing this matter before the public, if for no other reason than that he has demonstrated the utter inability of some of our J.P.s to interpret an Act which I positively assert was framed for the specific purpose of applying to such a case as that under review. I trust, therefore, that the attention of the Minister of Justice will be called to such an outrageous verdict.— Yours, &c, A Fathkr.