SIX MONTHS’ GAOL

Evening Star, Issue 20635, 7 November 1930, Page 8

SIX MONTHS’ GAOL

CHARGE OF BREAKING AND ENTERING FINGER-PRINT EVIDENCE TELLS Albert Stuart Davidson appeared before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy this morning for sentence on a charge of breaking, entering, and theft. He was represented by Mr 0. J. L. White. Mr White said that the accused was a married man, thirty-seven years of age, Tho offence was au old one, having been committed in July of last year It was ultimately sheeted home to him by means of finger print evidence, and it seemed extraordinary that it took so long. He was traced to Cromwell, and when questioned by the police frankly admitted his guilt, thereby saving the country considerable expense in not having to bring expert evidence from ; Wellington to prove the case against him. The accused liad been married for five years and had a good war service, having served for three years in France He was a tailor's presse by trade, but had been quite unable to obtain employment in that trade, and had been working as a casual labourer. In 1925 he was before the court for breaking and entering, when he received twelve months’ probation. He seemed to havo made good under probation, because be was not before the court on any charge of dishonesty until July of last year, and he (Mr White; understood that that offence occurred within a day or two of the offence with which he was now charged. He vyas then sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment. At that time he was out of work and could not get c doyment anywhere. After ho had served that sentence he could not obtain work, and was arrested for vagrancy, for which he served a term of one month. Ho was then desperate, and he went to an hotel and said he .would assist for whatever he could earn, and he was given work at £1 a week. His wife then obtained employment at an hotel, and he obtained employment with her. and thev received £7 n week and found. The accused had been in gaol since the offence was committed, and it seemed unfortunate that just when he had a chance of making good he should be brought up on an offence of that nature. Tho Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) submitted that the man’s previous convictions made it impossible for the court to regard the case leniently or to treat him practically as a first offender. His learned friend had drawn attention to the fact that the accused was imprisoned for a short time for an other offence committed about the same time as the offence with which he was now charged and that the offence was an old one. The accused had himself to blame for that. He might havo purged his conscience at the time by confessing the present offence and having it dealt with at the time. The accused had no family, and his wife was appar ently in a position to look after herself very well. Tho man had a trade at his finger ends, and it was extraordinary that he should have been in the condition which Mr White suggested he was at the time referred to. A sentence of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed.