PRISON FOR THEFT

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 85, 9 April 1936, Page 6

PRISON FOR THEFT

FROM CITY WAREHOUSE

QUESTION OF IDENTITY

On two charges of breaking and entering a city warehouse and committing theft therein, to which he pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court Arthur James Tullett, aged 29, a steward, was sentenced by Mr. Juslice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday to two years' reformative detention on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. . A question of identity was raised by Tullett's counsel, Mr. R. Hardie Boys, who said that the matter had greatly exercised the minds of the Crown Prosecutor and himself. According to police records Arthur James Tullett, answering generally to the description of the present prisoner, was convicted in Marton in 1928 of a minor form of theft and fined £5. To the police when arrested and to counsel the prisoner had consistently contended that he had never been in Marton or been previously convicted. The authorities had gone to some trouble to convince not only themselves but Tullett and counsel that his denial was not true. Counsel understood that there was in court a constable from Marton who was present when the man Tullett was convicted there and who had identified him as the prisoner, and there had been produced the signature to the statement made in Marton in 1928 which except for a difference in one letter resembled the signature of the prisoner. For the purpose of sentence counsel's instruction was that the prisoner felt he had to admit the conviction even though it was not against him. The difficulty was that he recognised that if he failed to prove his contention the Court would deem him a man who would commit Mr. Justice Smith said that he could not accept that attitude. If there was any doubt about the identity of the man he would ask the Crown to prove it. It was for counsel to say whether the prisoner should go into the box or not. ■ ■' • ' .

His Honour then asked the prisoner whether he admitted the Marton conviction, and Tullett replied that he •would have to plead guilty to that. The Crown- Prosecutor (Mr. P. S. K. Macassey) said he was quite prepared to' prove it. , Mr. Hardie Boys then dealt with the circumstances of the present case. He said.that Tullett had been associated with .the ringleader in .the offences for one week after he had had a disagreement' with his wife, and that/he had left the city after the offences without deriving any profit from them. The crimes had been committed under the influence of the other man. The Court was not dealing with a man who had to be delivered from a life of crime.

Notwithstanding counsel's persuasive plea, said his Honour,-he was not satisfied that it was his duty to extend to the prisoner the benefits of the First Offenders' Probation Act. Although the prisoner was not the ringleader he had assisted and was equally guilty in the eyes of the law. In his Honour's view the crime of breaking and entering a warehouse was a serious one. The ringleader had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and he would sentence Tullett to a shorter term.