THEFTS FROM HOTEL

Evening Star, Issue 21285, 14 December 1932, Page 11

THEFTS FROM HOTEL

NINE MONTHS' REFORMATIVE DETENTION OFFENCES THE RESULT OF DRINK .Nine months’ reformative detention was the sentence imposed upon Alfred Edward Taylor, a manned man, who appeared before His Honour' Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court this morning on two charges of breaking, entering, and theft from an hotel at Omakau. Mr F. M. Hanan, who appeared for the prisoner, asked His Honour to view the offences as the actions of a man with an unfortunate craving for liquor; rather than the actions of a man with criminal intentions. A sum of money was exposed in the place at the time of the .offences,, and the acquisition of liquor by the prisoner rseemed to show that that was his object. rather than the, theft of money or property. According to the report of the probation officer, the prisoner was a hard-working, industrious man, was-a skilled tradesman, and was at present in employment. His wife and children were dependent upon him, and, if he were sent to gaol, they would most likely become a'charge on the State. Owing to the expense of transport between Omakau and Dunedin he had not been able to arrange for the attendance of witnesses who could testify as to the previous good character of the prisoner, but he had a number of letters which in the circumstances His Honour might like to see. His Honour: They will not assist you, Mr Hanan. The difficulty is that this man had been convicted, and he was released to come up for sentence if called upon. _He was also the subject of a prohibition order. Mr Hanan said that, although the prisoner had been ordered to come up for sentence within nine months, he had kept away from liquor during that period, and his conduct had been proper. The period of nine months had expired at the time of the present offences. The prisoner’s resistance to alcohor temptation and his good conduct showed his ability to control his craving for liquor, tf he were given similar treatment on this occasion the result would probably be successful. A week in custody had already been experienced by the prisoner in awaiting sentence, and this had already had a deterrent effect upon him. Counsel suggested that imprisonment might destroy the man’s self-respect, which he felt sure might be the force which would give him power to combat the craving for liquor. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the police report showed that the crimes were closely allied to the habitual use of alcohol. When he was arrested the prisoner had the appearance of one who had been overindulging, and there was also the evidence or the mechanical nature of the crimes, which were repeated on three successive nights. On two nights he succeeded in getting_ through the window arid on the third he was caught in the act. “ The offences for which you were committed for sentence were committed at night.” said His Honour. “ You had previously _ been before the court, and after conviction you were ordered to come up for sentence within nine months. According to the probation officer’s report there was also a prohibition order against you. If I thought it would serve a useful purpose to admit you to probation then I would do it, but I am abundantly satisfied upon the reports before me that it would be useless, and your own interests, as well of the interests of the State, will best be served by imposing upon you a sentence of reformative detention.' The sentence of the court is that you be detained for reformative purposes for a period ofyiine months. That is the sentence upon each charge, and the sentences are concurrent.”