POST OFFICE THEFT

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 72, 26 March 1931, Page 15

POST OFFICE THEFT

PROBATION REFUSED

TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT

A pica that the prisoner had stolen not for tho purpose of gambling, but for the maintenance of his wife, though he acknowledged that that was no excuse, was made by Mr. W. Heine, when appearing for William Sydney Evans, a Post Office official, who appeared before his Honour Mr. Justice MacGregor in the Supremo Court to-day for sentence for the theft of -£595 -is lOd. , Counsel said that the offences might be regarded as systematic were it.not for tho manner in. which the prisoner was driven to conceal his first offence. At first, a comparatively small sum was taken to enable the prisoner, who was married and was finding it difficult to maintain his wife and himself, to meet a small debt. He took further sums to avoid detection, and in that way tho amount grew like a snowball, and in the course of a year lie owed the Department about A 200. He took from the Department to give back to the Department to cover up the lost rebates, practically the whole amount collected in the last two years going to satisfy past defalcations. The prisoner, was in tfie Department, for sixteen years, during which time he had not one black mark against him. He had passed most of the examinations, and was regarded as a most efficient officer. He was devoted to his wife and children, and his domestic life appeared to have been very good. His Honour: "This is .put before me by the Probation. Officer." "Counsel said that the prisoner's wife had been in. very bad health, and his children had been under three doctors. His salary during the last four years was £290, which, less sums for superannuation and life insurance, made his not income just under £.5 a week. He was faced with increasing obligations. One child was aged three years, and the other eighteen months, and he was paying for furniture and confinement expenses. In view of tho prisoner's previous good character, the fact that he had helped the police, and that the money had very largely gone back to his employers, counsel asked that the Court might extend leniency. The prisoner had lost his employment, and counsel said that he would go so far as to suggest a long period of probation. His Honour pointed out that the prisoner was in the trusted service of tho Post Office. It was true that he was of good repute, "but," said his Honour, "I suppose that is why he was placed in the position." A sentence of two years' imprisonment on each charge was "imposed, the sentences to be concurrent.