EIGHTEEN MONTHS5 HARD LABOUR

Evening Star, Issue 20591, 17 September 1930, Page 9

EIGHTEEN MONTHS 5 HARD LABOUR

CHARGE OF BREAKING AND ENTERING TWO MEN SENTENCED Albert Harris and Walter Clark appeared before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedj' in the Supreme- Court this morning for sentence on a charge of breaking, entering, and theft by day. Mr C. J. L. White appeared. for Clark, but Harris was not. represented by counsel “ I was up against it—hard pushed,” said Harris, when asked if he had anything to say. “1 have a wife and two young children. 1 took what 1 am charged with taking. I was in dire need and distress.” The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the prisoner’s statement in court was hardly consistent with .what he told the police. He told the police that the breaking and' entering was the result of an accident arising out of horse-play in the doorway of the shop, the door opening when Clark and he bumped against it. Had there been any dire need, the accused would probably have said so at once to the police. Learned counsel was informed by the police that for able-bodied men of this typo there was abundant work to be had in the country if they would leave town for the time being. The account of what he did on the day of the offence showed that accused and Clark went to a number of hotels and had drink, and went to a picture show. Between them they had money to buy beer and to pay the entrance to a picture show. It would seem that the accused meant to sell what he stole, because he could not feed his wife, , a child of two, and a baby of. three months on bacon, ham, and pickles worth £4 10s. Learned counsel submitted that it was simply an ordinary 1 case of breaking and entering—a crime . of which the community was having too j much' and which was bpcoming, a nuisance to shopkeepers and others in the city. The accused had to be chased by a constable, who, in the ensuing struggle, had to obtain the aid of a civilian before he could handcuff Harris. The constable’s clothing was damaged. Mr White said he had been asked by .Clark’s mother to appear. Clark .was a single man, thirty-six years of age, and had spent most of his life in the country. Four days before the offence ho came to town. He had some money, and his mother was well able to keep him. He met Harris and ” shouted ” for him. That was where, the money came from, and it was scarcely right to say that Harris had been spending l money in the way it might be supposed. I They were in the doorway skylarking and pushed the door open when they bumped against it. There was every reason to believe that, because the hour was 7 o’clock in the evening, when there were many people about at a time they would not likely choose to break and enter the _ place. Counsel suggested that the crime was not illtended, but that when the door was pushed open the temptation was too great. Harris’s wife was in dire need, and later the senior-sergeant of police gave her assistance. Clark assisted Harris to take some of the hams. Clark was really helping his friend, who was in dire need. In view of all the circumstances learned counsel asked His Honour to treat the case as leniently as possible. The Crown Prosecutor said the story by Harris of being in dire need was hardly believeable. If Harris was in dire need, it would have been more proper for Clark, instead of buying liquor and spending money at a picture show, to spend some money in helping his friend’s wife and children. Learned counsel submitted that the court should not accept the statement 'of Harris that he did'not have money and that Clark simply “ shouted ” for him. The social workers had been in touch with Harris’s wife, and help had been given. His Honour, in dealing with- Harris, said it was apparent from his own statement that there was spent upon drink and pictures by him and his companion an amount which might usefully have been applied towards his necessities had he been in any real need. On that day ho spent in pleasure and amusement a sum in excess of that which the ordinary working man in constant employment had available for those purposes. His Honour went on to say that, having regard to Harris’s record for_ dishonesty, he could not place much reliance upon the statement that the door was accidentally opened. His subsequent struggle with the constable, in which he first endeavoured to strike him with a bottle and then damaged his uniform, showed the manner of man that Harris really was. From a report it appeared that upon release from gaol upon probationary license, Harris broke his liberty by assault. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner be imprisoned with hard labour for eighteen months. Dealing vfith Clark, His Honour said: “ What 1 have said in sentencing Harris applies in the main to you. You are 1 a single man, and two convictions last year have not deterred you from continuing dishonesty. The sentence, of, the court is that you bo imprisoned with hard labour for eighteen months*”,