SOLICITOR’S IMPRISONMENT

Evening Star, Issue 20980, 19 December 1931, Page 3

SOLICITOR’S IMPRISONMENT

CONCURRENT TERM IMPOSED [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, December 18. A request by a prisoner that ans term of imprisonment which the court might impose should date from July 28 last was granted by Mr Justice Reed in sentencing Pereival John Scantlehury; on four charges of theft at the Supremo Court to-day. Counsel for the prisoner said the latter was at present serving a term o£ three years’ imprisonment for making a false declaration on an audit certificate* This had been done to cover up the difficulties in which he had found himself* He got behind in his books and had overdrawn his trust account. Up to date Scantlehury had assisted the police and the Official Assignee to reduce his clients’ loss as much as possible. The amount was now well below £l,lOO, and there would he a further reduction of about £250. The prisoner had suffered from disgrace, and was also suffering by, the term of imprisonment which he was serving. Scantlehury, from, the dock, asked it he might supplement the remarks of his counsel, and, the request being granted, he said that of the term of three years he had already served four and a-half months, and this, with the remission the prisoner might expect for good conduct, was equivalent to six months. Ha was not responsible for the delay in bringing the case before the Supreme Court. “If your Honour intends to pass a similar sentence to the one I ami now serving I would ask that it should take effect from July 28 last.”_ His Honour said he did not intend to increase the term which the prisoner was now serving, and would sentence him to three rears’ reformative detention, the sentence to be concurrent with the one the prisoner, was now serving and to date from July 28 last.