LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1278, 6 November 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. STRANGE UPPER HUTT AFFAIR. AND OTHER SENTENCES. A number of prisoners were sentenced in the Supremo Court on Saturday niorninj,' by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert S(out). Mr. T. Noave, of tho Crown Law Office, represented the Crown. Two men, who had recently pleaded Siiilty to charter, of arson and of bre.ikiiij into a whare at Upper Jlutt, were placed in (he doe!c. Their names were ilenrv Edward Whitemau and Leonard Edwards. .Air. T. M. Wilford, wlio appeared for them, slated that their case was uniquo from tlie fact that, though they were chared with serious offences, they were men who had hitherto borne very clean and straight characters. Whiteman was a married man, 31 years of age, with eight children to support. Edwards was practically a boy not yet 21. Neither was a criminal by instinct or heredity, and thev came from a class of sturdy farmers. What was the cause of their action? Neither was a drunkard, but, on this occasion, they had had some (Iridic, and went to this week-end whare. One got in through a window, and, in doing so, broke a rail. They then conceived the extraordinary idea of burning down the whare to cover up what they had done. Both men were in a position to make good the damage which they had done. Edwards had paid over on a section, and Whiteman owned a piece of land on which he had reduced the mortgage to a very small amount. His Honour had previously granted probation to a man charged with arson, and counsel suggested that the present case was a fitting one for similar lenient treatment. His Honour commented on the fact that, of live prisoners brought before him that morning, drink had something to do with their cases. The effect of drink was to prostrate a man's will power. His Honour then went on to state that he had always been in favour of nut sending a person to gaol for a first offence, and he would therefore grant probation for two years, but the prisoners would have to pay the costs of the prosecution and they must refrain from drink during the term of their probation. They must not oven be seen in hotels. DECLARED HABITUAL. A young man, named Walter Henry Marslon, who had pleaded guilty in tho Court below, had no fewer than seventeen charges against him. They wero for breaking and entering and theft, and breaking and entering, with intent to commit crime. He had been convicted on several previous occasions. His Honour, iu sentencing tho prisoner, remarked that, ns he was only twenty-six years of age, there- was still hope for him. The sentence would be two years with hard labour on each charge, the sentences to bo concurrent. The prisoner was also declared a habitual criminal. THE LAST CHANCE. Herbert Metford, who had pleaded gnilty at Napier to theft from a dvteiung, had been convicted on previous occasions. JIo had nothing to say why sentence of tho Court should not lie passed. His Honour observed that it appeared I that the prisoner had allowed drink tu ! get the better of him. He would not be declared a habitual criminal on this occasion, but it must be the last chance. A sentenco of IS months' imprisonment with hard labour would be imposed, this to be followed by two years' dotcution for roiormative treatment. TO GRIEF THROUGH DRINK, John Keojfh gavo nc reason as to why he should not be sentenced on a charge of theft from a dwelling, to which he had pleaded guilty at Napier. "l'our's is another case of a man coming to grief through driuk. You had been dnmcing, you could not get a bed, and this man (tho informant) was good enough to giyo you a rcc-ui. This is how you treated him after ho had bcou kind i y V;, ~°V navo Deen five times convicted of theft in tho Magistrate's Court, but as you arc a young man, I will not declare you a habitual criminal. You will ■ ? 0U ' e » l:(Kl 1 , 0 , 1S months'imprisonment, to be iollowed by two years' reformative treatment.