HORSE AND CATTLE THEFTS.

Evening Post, Volume LCCVI, Issue 126, 26 November 1908, Page 7

HORSE AND CATTLE THEFTS.

PRISONER BEFORE THE COURT. SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. At the criminal sessions of the Supreme Court to-day, Mr. Justice Cooper passed a sentence of two years' imprisonment on a young man, Gilbert Langdon, 19 years of age, a drover by occupation. Yesterday the prisoner was found guilty of theft of a mare belonging to a native named Hakaraea, near Norsewood, Hawkes Bay. An intimation was made that prisoner had pleaded guilty in the Lower Court to cattle stealing, and that he would also be sentenced for those offences thia morning. Mr. Herdman said it was out of the question, under the circumstances, to apply for probation. But he wished to bring under the notice of the court that prisoner was only nineteen years of age, and that there was evidence on the depositions to show that he had hitherto borne a good character. The medical evidence and the evidence of the lad s mother also showed that he suffered an accident during his birth, and that he had' been of ar eccentric disposition. Counsel submitted that his client had yielded to a sudden temptation. His Honour questioned whether it was a sudden temptation, and observed that this was one of those cases in which it was impossible for him to avoid infliptjng punishment One of the most painful duties a Judge had to perform was that which involved the necessity of sentencing to imprisonment a comparatively young man. The prisoner in the present case was not a mere youth ; he was a grown man, although only 19 years of age. He had been convicted of horse-steaKng, besides having pleaded guilty to a series of charges of cattlestealing commencing on 9th October, and extending to 23rd October". It was not the ordinary class of stealing a beast that sometimes came before the court ; it was wholesale cattle- stealing, the total value of the property being £150. The First Offenders' Probation Act could could not by any means be applied to the case. It might be that the injury which prisoner suffered from his birth might have had dome sinister effect on his moral character. Most persons who commenced a career of crime had some unhealthy twist in their character, caused in many instances by circumstances over which they had no control. But the exigencies of the State required that however unfortunate they might be in being unable to control themselves they had to be punished for the offences which they committed. His Honour regretted very much that there was not in this Dominion some means for segregating prisoners who had not been previously convicted from associating with older and more hardened offenders. His Honour would under these circumstances suggest to the gaoler that he should, as far as the regulations of the prison permitted, do what he could to prevent the prisoner from associating with the class mentioned. From what he knew of the gaoler, Mr. Armstrong, he had no doubt he would, as far as the regulation& of tht prison permitted, do what he could to prevent the prisoner from being contaminated by associating with hardened convicted prisoners. His Honour could make no order , he could only make the suggestion. This offence of cattle-stealing was a very serious one indeed. It caused loss to settlers, and it was very hard to detect in many instances. If it was once to go forth from this court that systematic cattlestealing, even by young men, should be met with merely a nominal punishment, he was afraid a great injury would be don*, to the farming community. Not only that, but there would be a kind of invitation to persons dishonestly inclined to commit breaches of the law v,n the supposition that they might ne dealt with nominally. He would not pass on prisoner a sentence he would pass on a man of mature age. But. it must be a sentence which would indicate that these offences to which prisoner had pleaded guilty »vere of a serious nature. Prisoner would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour on each offence, the terms to run concurrently. His Honour concluded that he could not avoid feeling sympathy and compassion for ttie parents and for the the young rnaa himself. But one had to do what was a painful duty, and his Honour passed what in the circumstances he thought was a lenient sentence on prisoner, although at the same time it was a substantial sentence, and one which indicated that these offences coula not be permitted to pass ■without substantial punishment.