PRISONERS SENTENCED

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 76, 31 March 1922, Page 8

PRISONERS SENTENCED

A JUDGE'S WARNING

TO DISHONEST CIVIL SERVANTS

THEFT OF £105 FROM POST

OFFICE.

Eight prisoners who bad pleaded guilty to serious charges in the lower Court were dealt with by Mr. Justice Hosking at the Supreme Court to-day. One of them was a young man named Cecil Harold Pugh, who ftad admitted the theft of moneys totalling £105 Is from the Post and Telegraph Department, and, while sentencing the prisoner, his Honour gave a definite warning' that in future dishonest Civil servants could not expect lenient treatment. Pugh had been in the service of the Department at Wanfianuv, and one of his duties was to collect from the stampvending machines. Certain irregularities were noticed in July last, but the charges concerned thefts in January and February. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for prisoner, said that the money had been taken by Pugh when his financial obligations pressed upon him, but it was plain from his former actions that he had not intended to actually steal the money, but hoped to repay the amount, as had been done before. As a mailer of fact, Pugh had written to friends in Christchurch for assistance prior to the discovery of his offence, and a sum of money, not quite sufficient to cover the shortage, arrived while he was being interviewed by his superiors, the remainder coming to hand on the following day. At no time had Pugh falsified the books or records, and it .must have been plain to him that discovery must have followed unless he repaid the money. His Honour: "It seems to me that he hoped his relatives would come to his assistance after he got into tremble." Mr. O'Leary again referred to prisoner's financial difficulties, and also mentioned his good war record, and asked the Bench to extend leniency. "I don't think you need urge probation," answered his Honour. "These thefts by Government servants have become so numerous and have been so leniently treated in the past that something must be done. ... I consider that it is in the public interest that thes-s cases should be treated more severely." Counsel suggested that it might very well have been contended that there was no dishonest intent on Pugh's part at all, but,his Honour remarked that no man could'take money from a Government department, keep it for weeks, and then say that he had merely borrowed it from the Crown. The case was not that of a boy who had stolen one small sum, for Pugh.was 34 years of age and had taken money over a period. The sentence would be one of reformative detention. Counsel suggested that reformative detention was not what was required in Pugh's case, for he was the type of man who would profit by his single bitter experience and never face a Court again. If a period of probation could not be granted, would the Court consider the infliction of a short term of straightout imprisonment? His Honour did not fall in with the ■•suggestion; -rbut.-,..ordered that prisoner* should be detained for reformative purposes for a period not exceeding eighteen months. -THEFT FROM EMPLOYERS. , Reginald Freeman, who had previously been in trouble, was called for sentence upon "a charge of stealing £47 | from his employers, Brown and Dureau. Prisoner, through Mr. P. W. Jackson, offered the explanation that he had spent the money and also £43, in respect of which no charge was considered this morning, in entertaining overseas clients and others who called at the Auckland branch. s His Honour remarked that the expenditure of £90 in. that manner in two months was, on the face of it, extreme. Freeman, had used a good deal of cunning in having in his possession false letters and telegrams purporting to show that he had sent the money on to his employers, which fact had taken away from his claim to lenient treatment. The action of the employers his Honour did not consider praiseworthy, as' it appeared to him that they had made use of' the criminal proceedings in order to recover their money when Freeman had failed to account for it. They had acted apparently to recover the money and not in' the public interest. Mr. Jackson and Mr. W. E. Leicester, who had appeared in the lower Court, explained that that was not so, as the employers were given an assurance that the money had been lent to a friend, and would be returned. When they found that that was not so action was taken. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. P. S. Macassey, expressed the opinion that the, employers had acted in a rational manner, and his Honour concurred, though, ho added, "the story of a loan to a friend must have fallen on very susceptible ground, for it is hard to credit whether that story was believed." Prisoner was sentenced to a period of reformative detention not exceeding two years. ROBBED HIS BENEFACTOR. John Lennox, 57 years iof ago, admittedly guilty of a mean theft from j Laurie A. Taylor, who had oefriended him at' Stratford, had passed to the Bench a written plea for lenient treatment, and an assurance thai ho would not offend in future, but his Honour, after referring to the fact that prisoner had been twice declared an habitual criminal, and had, moreover robbed a man who had taken him into his house, imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently with an existing term of on» month. STOLEN OPIUM. The two youths, Charles Aloysius. Wilkinson, seventeen years ■of age, and Harold Fairchild Pobar, seventeen years of age, who were respectively the thief and receiver of a quantity of opium taken from Victoria College, were next' called to the dock. Each was placed upon probation for a term of three years, upon conditions requiring thorn to mako good the value of the stolen opium, £50, between them. ' ' . RECEIVING STOLEN JEWEL-' LFjRY. May. Faithful, a woman with a bad rocordj-'was sent to gaol for n month on cliargovof receiving stolen jewellery, and was declared an habitual criminal. In such a case, said his Honour, oiie could not expect reform, though,' after a time, the Prisons Board might release prisoner if there was ii prospect that she would do well. BREAKING AND ENTERING. . Two youths, George Henry Smith and William Brandt, who had broken into a dwelling with intent to commit a crime at Foxton, were ordered to be detained

for reformative purposes for periods not exceeding two years. PRISONERS TO BE SENTENCED. The following prisoners will be sentenced by Mr. Justice Hosking on Monday morning:— John Nickolich, false pretences,' forgery, and uttering, at Auckland, Hamilton, Taihape, Napier, Dannevirke, and Wellington—eighteen charges in all. James R. Fraser, theft, at Wellington. John Alexander Gemmell, thefts from dwellings, houscbreaking, breaking, entering, and theft, at Hawera, Stratford, ami Wanganui—thirteen charges in nil: Leonard Thomas Terrill, theft from dwellings, housebreaking, breaking, entering, and theft, at Hawera, Stratford, and Wanganui—twelve charges. Archibald John Robert M'Kay, breaking, entering, and theft, housebreaking, at Hawera and Wanganui—eight charges. Christopher Moffatfc, housebreaking, Wanganui—three charges. Alfred Bell, indecent assault, Wellington.