SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23053, 22 June 1940, Page 16

SUPREME COURT

.. PRISONERS SENTENCED Four prisoners appeared for sentence bercre Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday. Norman Stanley .Buchanan, op . a charge of breaking and entering, a dwelling house by night and committing thert, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour,- to be served at the termination-of a sentence which he is already serving. "You have a bad record,” said his Honour, addressing the prisoner. The present offence was serious because it was committed in. a bedroom and might have lead to violence. "More serious is the wanton way you are piling up a list of offences,” said bis Honour. “It seems the .time has come when you should be declared an habitual criminal.” i “I don’t want to go on,” the prisoner interjected. “On this occasion I propose to direct the registrar to record that you have been warned, and on your next appearance you will be so declared.” his Honour said. ■Three Years’ Imprisonment Arthur Power Staples (Mr W. F. . Tracyon a charge of an attempted unnatural offence and eight charges of indecent assault on males, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Mr Tracy said that the prisoner, a married man, living with his wife and three children at Sumner, had built up in the 12 years he had been there, a comfortable business and a high reputation. His present offences had been a stunning shock to his wife, family, and friends. Little could be said in mitigation of the offences, but counsel asked that the prisoner’s previous blameless record and good background be taken into consideration. His Honour said that the prisoner’s loathsome offences were highly dangerous. and were seemingly projected against any unfortunate youth who came into his power directly or indirectly. Youths must be protected. Indecent Assault Charles Edward Weigel (Mr E. S. Bowie), a single man, aged 52. was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour, on a charge of indecent assault on a female. Mr Bowie said that prisoner was' a gardener, and was a good and capable worker. He had taken prizes at shows. Twelve years ago he was released from prison and had lived as a satisfactory member of society. The evidence of the girl, said Mr Bowie. had some unsatisfactory features, and. he suggested, could not be entirely relied on. There were discrepancies in her recollections of certain events, and no report of ‘ the offence was made till many months afterward. There was a suggestion of moral laxity in the home, the. girl’s father, knowing the, prisoner’s previous record, having allowed him to sleep in the same room as the girl and her brother. His Honour said he was not disposed to accept counsel’s view that the prisoner’s host had failed in his moral duty. There was not a scrap of evidence to show lack of moral standards in the home. “On.the contrary,” said his Honour to the prisoner, “knowing your record, he reposed a trust in you which you abused.” Charles Richard Ward (Mr F. D. Sar- ' gent) was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour on- a charge of indecent assault on a female. Mr Sargent said that the prisoner, who was 31, was married last October, but almost at once his wife became - seriously ill, and remained in hospital. She had now nearly recovered,, and would be able to return -to her husband in -a few weeks. Prisoner had been very frank in his statement to the police. There appeared to be some ■ degree of acquiescence and invitation on the part qf the girl. He had been twice previously before Courts, but in each case he had assumed the responsibility for offences in which he was not the main offender. . . “You seem to be an unfortunate person,” said his Honour. “On this occasion you seem to have been the victim of the seduction of a child of 12. The | law, as well as decency, demands that you resist these temptations.”