PROBATION REFUSED

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 72, 18 December 1926, Page 17

PROBATION REFUSED

A CIVIL SERVANT’S THEFT’S. Having pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court to a charge of theft as a servant, Erie Charles William Rose, a Civil servant, appeared for sentence before His Honour the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court yesterday. The prisoner was represented by Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, who asked leave to call evidence as to character before sentence was passed. Ernest Petersen Hay said that he had known the prisoner well all his life; having been intimately associated with his family, he bad had an unusual opportunity of judging Rose’s character. The prisoner’s behaviour at home and towards his parents had always been exemplary. In addressing Hie Honour, Mr. Treadwell reminded him that he had previously said that before a person placed in a position of trust could be granted probation the circumstances would have to be exceptional. Counsel assured His Honour that the circumstances in this case were exceptional. “This young man,” said counsel, “is twenty-three years of age, . . . and up to the present time has been an exemplary youth. He has never been the slightest trouble or anxiety to his parents.” Counsel told the Court that the prisoner was always trying to lend a helping hand both to his family and to his friends. He suggested that the objects of his thefts had. been to help a friend of his out of his acuities although the prisoner had refused to break his promise to his friend by mentioning his name. If probation were granted, said counsel, the prisoner would be put on a farm in the country, where he would be well looked after. "I am certainly not prepared to allow you probation,”' said His Honour, in passing sentence. “The circumstances have been well brought up, and that vour parents occupied a very, high position is a circumstance which should have prevented you from committing the crime. You had ono chance. Y r ou followed that chance up by committing the crimes which are now the subject of the charge. I am aware of the attitude adopted on your behalf, but it is my duty as a Judge of the Court to punish you. I am here to inflict such punishment as will prevent the recurrence of these cases of dishonesty. I have, of course, also another function to perform —not unnecessarily to impose punishment on men of good character. But I have always to keep in mind the solemn duty which I have to the public to see that crime is punished, so that the notion will not get abroad that crime may go unpunished.” The prisoner was sentenced to reformative detention for a period of two years.