SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24053, 15 September 1943, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

PRISONERS SENTENCED "Several prisoners appeared beiove Ur Justice Northcroft for sentence yesterday tnthe Supreme Court in Christchurch. Norman Franpis Oberg, aged 18, a shop assistant, who had pleaded guilty to theft, was represented by Mr J. D. Hutchison, who asked for leniency on the grounooi the prisoner’s previous good character. Oberg was one of a family of six, said counsel, and had. never been In trouble before. He had been employed as a shop assistant by Heath and Company to Christchurch, and, previous to his theft being discovered, he had resigned. Counsel indicated that Oberg had desired to remove himself from temptation. Though some of the goods had been worn, toe majority had been recovered, and he had been frank with the police and had assisted them. . . . ~ , Oberg, Mr Hutchison said, had disposed of a small quantity by sale to other men who had already appeared before a magistrate. The prisoner had learned ms Honour, addressing the prisoner, said: "In your case, if it had been possible, I would have been disposed to yield to the solicitation of your counsel, but that is impossible. You took advantage of your employers and plundered them deliberately to a considerable extent. You need discipline, and you will be detained at Borstal for two years.” S Charge of Bigamy William Alec George Pearsall, aged 29, a soldier in uniform, who had fought in Greece, Crete, and in Libya, appeared for sentence, having pleaded guilty to a Ch Mr S C. O S. Thomas stated that the prisoner had been married in December, 1938, and, as the marriage was not a success, the parties had separated. The first since applied for a divorce on the ground of separation, and the P etit^ n w Sil ( LJn heard shortly. In January, 1940. P e arsall had enlisted, and came to Christchurch where he met the woman who became his second wife. Their marriage took place on August 10, 1940, and 17 days later the prisoner left for abroad. For a short time he was a prisoner ffi war, and he also suffered from shell shock. "It is the old time war-time story, declared counsel, "but. fortunately for aU concerned, it is not as serious as is often toe case." When the position became he added, Pearsall had offered to many the second woman. But she had since reimarried, and, as far as she was concerned, she had no animus against,the prisoner. Counsel attributed his action to “some kind of war hysteria, and as his civil record was good, be appealed for Pearsall £25, his Honour said he was entitled to take into consideration the abnormal emotional • circumstances, also the service that he had rendered to his country. It was fortunate for him, said the judge, that neither of the women concerned had suffered unduly.

Series of Charges ' Another soldier, Allan Joseph Davies, appeared for sentence, having pleaded guilty to four charges of breaking _ and entering in Christchurch, and one of forgery. Davies, who was not represented by counsel, had nothing to say. Mr Justice Northcroft characterised his crimes as “deliberate and skilful." and said that the prisoner had been leading a shiftless sort of life. When sentencing him to two years to Borstal, he remarked that Davies needed discipline, and that could be obtained only to an institution. Breaking and Entering William McKenzie and Robert Wark Johnston, two youths who had pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, were each sentenced to a year’s imprisonment with hard ’.abour. „ ■ . .. Mr D. W. Russell, for McKenzie, said the prisoner was 19 years old, and had previously been in trouble for thefts committed at Wanganui and Wellington, and he thought they were all in the one cycle of crime. ' . .. His Honour: Why do you say that? There were 10 charges at Wanganui and five at Wellington. . , Counsel said that McKenzie had been sentenced to three years in Borstal, and on his release had been working, on the steamer express. When he. had been paid off, he had been idle, and he attributed his lapse to that fact. “He does not put the blame on Johnston." continued Mr Russell, “but the Probation Officer says that if McKenzie had not met Johnston he would not be in his present situation. Johnston, who was .21 years old, said Mr J. K. Moloney, had, admittedly, a formidable list, but he suggested that his history and environment should be taken into consideration. His father, he declared, had deserted his mother when the prisoner was four years old. and he had had no. opportunity in life. .Though Johnston accepted the blame, he declared that McKenzie had been a willing associate. Mr Justice Northcroft said that he was not disposed to make any distinction between the prisoners. They had planned their crime by daylight, he declared, so, that they could perform it by night. While Johnston certainly had had more Court appearances than McKenzie, both were equally culpable. If "the former had had a good whipping when he appeared in the Children’s Court instead of being sent away with smooth words, his career might have been different. “Now that you both have decided to become regular criminals,” he concluded, “it is my‘duty to assess your punishment, and I sentence you each to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour.”