CRIMINAL SITTINGS

Evening Star, Issue 19319, 4 August 1926, Page 8

CRIMINAL SITTINGS

AUCKLAND In sentencing Michael Kcady, Mr Justice Stringer said that accused, who had hitherto borne an unblemished reputation, had pleaded guilty to receiving stolon property, nis first plea of not guilty having been withdrawn in the course of yesterday’s hearing. Ilf it were not for receivers there would be fewer thefts. He was satisfied that this was an individual case on acI cusccl’s pari, and ho had no reason | to suppose he had been guilty of any such other offence. He was a man of good position and ample means. He felt it would not be consistent \yith his duty to the public to inflict a tine only, as had been suggested by accused’s counsel. He must not allow the j thought that because accused was a I man of means that ho could pay where ' others less fortunate could not do so. j In the circumstances he could not do | other than impose a short sentence, j That would bo punishment and cle- , gradation enough. Accused would be j sentenced to imprisonment for three months, and would pay a fine of £501). TiM At the Supremo Court, before Mr Justice Adams, three Maoris appeared. Harold Tarcwai Wesley was admitted to probation for three years, and was ordered to pay the cost of _ the prosecution (£ls 18s 6cl), in addition to £5 compensation, on a charge of receiving a motor cycle, knowing it to have been unlawfully obtained. Harold Wanka, alias Walker, pleaded guiltv to a charge of carnal knowledge. Ho was sentenced _to roI formative treatment not exceeding six I months. • , I Mason Teraki was charged with breaking and entering, ami was sentenced to reformative treatment for eighteen months. j At the Supreme Court to-day Victor i Harris was sentenced by Mr Justice Adams to twelve months’ imprisonment on a charge of perjury. PALMERSTON NORTH STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK. THE JUDGE INCREDULOUS. In the Supreme Court to-day His Honor Mr Justice Reed, in summing up in a case in which Hector Mark Perrean, eighteen years of .age, was arraigned on three charges of breaking and entering and theft at Levin, or alternatively of theft alone or of receiving property knowing: it to have been stolen, referred to the accused’s statement in the bos that a detective at the police station at Wellington had struck him (accused) with his fist and knocked him down, and then caught him by the throat, to get a statement from him. “ I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that thh evidence is absolutely untrue,” said His Honor. “ Such a thing is impossible with any police officer, unless he is mad or drunk.” Probably the accused had been reading some third degree story of America, and had given the jury iho benefit of something that he had read. Nothing had been said by the accused about the knocking down incident when he-was charged in the lower court, and it was also strange that the detective when in the box had not been j cro-s-examined on the point. The jury was entitled to beljeve this story told by the accused, but His Honor felt that it was right for him to say that such an incident was impossible in New Zealand. If the jury disbelieved the accused on this matter, it would help them in coming to a decision on the other matters.