SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27038, 13 May 1953, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

THREE PRISONERS SENTENCED REFORMATIVE DETENTION FOR BANKRUPT “I feel it my duty to place you under restraint so that you cannot again engage in such conduct and to make it clear to the commercial community that such offences cannot be conmitted with impunity," said Mr Justice Northcroft when Edmund Peter Gill, aged 77, a manufacturers’ agent, appeared before him in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence on six counts of breaches of the Bankruptcy Act.

Gill was ordered to be detained for reformative purposes for a period of 12 months.

His Honour said that, during that period, the prison medical authorities could keep in touch with the alienists at Sunnyside Mental Hospital so that the observation of Gill’s mental condition could be continued and action taken if necessary. “I warn you, Gill, that you will be very ill advised to apply for your discharge from bankruptcy for it is quite clear that you are the sort of person who ought not to be engaged in business for you are not trustworthy at all,” said his Honour. Mr K. Twyneham. counsel for Gill, said that the prisoner had been engaged in the soft goods trade for the major part of his life, sometimes on his own account and sometimes as agent for manufacturers. At first sight it seemed incomprehensible that he accumulated such a large sum in debts and had no assets, but it had to be remembered that, at the time, trade was in a chaotic state. With the lifting of import restrictions, importers were faced with a flood of goods; the banks gave credit but had to be repaid in a short term, and goods were being sold at prices which, of necessity, resulted in a diminution on importers’ prices. “Incredible Optimist” Gill sold goods at a loss to pay for Erevious purchases, said Mr Twyneam. He simply robbed Peter to pay Paul. He always was an incredible optimist. Even to the last he was hopeful that a change would come about and that he would be enabled to pay his debts, even by instalments. Anything he received had not been spent extravagantly. He simply lost other people’s money m the course of trading. He had previously dealt with those mentioned in the charges and had then paid his debts to them. The position was a pathetic one. Gill had lost the esteem and reputation he had built up over 50 years. Even now he was optimistic enough to think he could rehabilitate himself and redeem his debts, in part at least. His Honour said it was distressing that a man of Gill’s age should be before the Court on these serious charges. He found it difficult to understand how a man, however optimistic, could justify getting goods, valued at thousands of pounds, resell them at less than the purchase price, and use the money to pay old debts. It was almost incredible that Gill should have been optimistic enough to have any real expectation that any change in the market conditions should make it possible for him to pay his debts. Gill bought the goods ana sold them almost immediately before any change in market conditions could occur. The result to the commercial community must have been grave indeed and m some instances the loss must have been crinpling, if not ruinous. His Honour said he had studied the medical reports on Gill and, with counsel present, had consulted Dr. Saville, an alienist from Sunnyside Mental Hospital and, in Dr. Saville’s opinion, Gill was still suffering from the mental disorder he had at tne time he committed the crimes.

Charges Against Accused The charges to which Gill pleaded guilty ana on which he was sentenced were that, being adjudged bankrupt on December 17, 1952, when he contracted each of the following debts he could not have had at the time any reasonable or probable expectation of being able to pay the debt as well as all his other debts: £11,607 to Cooper Wilkes and Brookes, Ltd., for goods supplied between September 8 and October 20; £714 to Charmonte Creations, Ltd., for goods supplied between November 20 and November 30; £7'3 2s lid to the New Brighton Manufacturing Company for goods supplied between October 30 and November 20; £729 15s 9d to the Biccarton Manufacturing Company, Ltd., for goods supplied between Cctober 20 and November 19; £976 2s 6d to the Paris Manufacturing Company, Ltd., for goods supplied on November 20 and November 24; and £445 16s to L. F. McMenamin for goods supplied on December 1. Prison for Indecent Assault Patrick Farrelly, aged 31, a machinist, who was found guilty by a jury on Monday of indecently assaulting a girl aged six years and If months, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Mr B. McClelland, who appeared for Farrelly, said that the prisoner had had liquor on the afternoon of the offence and his judgment would be affected to some degree. The offence was a disgusting one but the child was not seriously affected in any physical way. Farrelly was happily married and was in steady employment. It was difficult to account for this lapse except that it was due to liquor. Farrelly had never been in trouble before and the Court might consider extending him leniency. His Honour said he was bound to treat Farrelly as a first offender but Farrelly had not been long in this country and there was onlv his own account to go on of his conduct before he came here. 'Hie crime was of such a character that he could not escape the suspicion that Farrelly was not a stranger to this behaviour, but he was not entitled to act on suspicion but only on what was proved in Court. It was a grave and horrible offence and though the child was not seriously affected physically there was no telling what harm might have been done psychologically. Farrelly was a first offender but it was a gross and disgusting piece of conduct for which the Court could not grant probation. Breach of Probation Douglas Stanley Davis, aged 24, a labourer, pleaded guilty to a charge that, having been admitted to probation on August 19 on two charges of breaking, entering and theft, he had broken the terms of his probation by committing another offence. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each of the two original charges, the sentences to be cumulative—a total of 12 months—this sentence to begin at the end of the sentence he is now serving. His Honour said that, somewhat against his better judgment and against the recommendation of the Probation Officer, he had admitted Davis to probation for three years on August 19, hoping he would take it as an opportunity to jgo straight. However, he apparently had taken it as a weakness of the law and had committed further crime. It was his duty now to deal with Davis as he should have done in the first instance.