FOUR YEARS' GAOL

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 66, 15 September 1942, Page 3

FOUR YEARS' GAOL

EIGHTY-SIX OFFENCES

LONG TRAIL OF CHEQUES

A trail of valueless cheques that embraced most places of any size in both islands kept William George Thomas, 45-year-old printer and labourer, on the move for more than three years, but the police came up with him, and in the Magistrate's Court at New Plymouth on September 4 he pleaded guilty to eighty-two charges of false pretences and four of theft. In the Supreme Court today he was sentenced to a total of four years' hard labour by Mr. Justice Smith and Was declared a habitual criminal. His Honour said that, so far as he knew, that number of charges to come before the Court on any one occasion must be a record.. His Honour said the prisoner had admitted three charges of stealing cheque forms, one of stealing £4 5s 6d, and eighty-two charges of false pretences, which, so far as he knew, must be a record for a list of offences that had come before the Court on any one occasion. He found difficulty in seeing how Thomas was allowed to proceed around the country for more than three years issuing valueless cheques. He presumed that it was difficult for the police to track him, but it was a sad reflection that that sort of crime could be committed over such a period. He supposed shopkeepers gave to Thomas the same trust as to other customers. Thomas kept in hand a large number of cheques, mostly for £5, already signed in fictitious names. He had received £28 in goods and £424 in change. The discovery of all his frauds was no doubt due to the fact that he had kept a record and helped, the police after he had been discovered. ; "APPALLING RECORD." The prisoner's statement, - continued his Honour, ■said that the crimes were not premeditated, but that was absurd. The prisoner was in employment when he started, and he admitted stealing and forging his employer's cheques and obtaining goods and money. It appeared that he had failed to meet his obligations under the Social Security Act. for four years, and another reason why Thomas said he had to continue was that he. had also failed to fulfil his obligations under the National' Service Regulations. ■• I Thomas's" record was appalling. In 1924 he had faced seven separate charges of false pretences, in 1927 two, and in 1930 thirty-six on one occasion, together with two charges of attempted false pretences. In addition, there j were charges of receiving stolen property, escaping from custody, and escaping from prison. The longest sentence had been three years' reformative detention. On the first charge of false pretences Thomas was sentenced to two years' hard labour, and on each of the other eighty-one charges to a similar term, to be concurrent in themselves but cumulative on the first sentence. On each of the theft charges he was sentenced to three months' hard labour, concurrent with the other combined term of four years. His Honour added that he thought it his duty to declare Thomas a habitual criminal.