“MUST BE PUT DOWN”

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 174, 11 April 1923, Page 6

“MUST BE PUT DOWN”

CASES OF BREAKING, ENTERING AND THEFT JUDGE COMMENTS ON PREVALENCE “A CRAZE IN THE COMMUNITY” Comment on the prevalence of burglary and similar crimes was passed in the Supreme Court yesterday by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), when four young men came up for sentence upon charges of either breaking and entering and theft or receiving stolen goods.

Henry Stephen Gradwell, who pleaded guilty to eight charges of breaking and entering and theft, and William James Mcßain, who pleaded guilty to twelve charges of breaking and entering and theft, receiving stolen property, and breaking and entering a public place of worship, were each sentenced to five years’ reformative detention. John Ryan, who pleaded guilty to five charges of receiving stolen property, and Charles Sivright Horace Barry, who pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering and theft, and to four charges of receiving stolen property, were each sentenced to three years’ reformative detention.

Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, on behalf of Gradwell, said that he had never been in the Court before,, though he had been charged with being in possession of a revolver

The Chief Justice: That is a very serious offence in a man who is found committing burglary. In the olden days you know what they would have done to him. ' Mr. Treadwell said that Gradwell had given all assistance possible to tho police. He was young enough to allow hope for his reform. In the case of Ryan, counsel asked His Honour to draw a distinction. He was s young man of ideals and good possibilities, and ’supported his mother and sister in Tasmania. The Mayor of Lower Hutt would employ him if ho could possibly be given probation. Mr. A. B. Sievwright, on behalf of Barry, said that though he had stood outside he had taken no part in the actual offences.

His Honour: Perhaps the others had more courage. I cannot see the difference between men who steal and tho man. who keeps watch for them. Mr. Sievwright . said that Barry did not seem to realise his position, and had looked on the matter as a ioke. His Honour: Barry is the man who disnosed of the goods. He held a raffle of them amongst the emnlovees of the department in which he was employed. The man seems to be an arrant fool.

Mr. P. W. Jackson, who appeared on behalf ,of Mcßain, said that the latter realised, his offence, and he only asked for leniency. x His Honour: Not only here, but all over New Zealand, the prevalence of breaking and entering and theft is astounding, and it is increasing. It is a craze in the community. I can’t allow any of them urobation. In this case the crimes have been committed over a series of different dates, in one case almost continuously. If I inflicted the maximum sentences possible under the existing law. thof would considerably exceed the natural lives of the prisoners. Mcßain could receive something like 130 years’ imprisonment, and Barry 120 years, f* one liked to impose it. Barry has even encouraged his fellow emnloyees to gamble for the stolen goods. He had ability and could have got on honestIv. I shall sentence Gradwell and Mcßain to five years’ reformative detention. and Bany and Ryan to three years’ reformative detention, the sentences in those cases where firearms were found in possession to start from the expiry of the sentences imposed for that offence. This breaking and entering must be tut down.