RANFURLY HOTEL FIRE

Evening Star, Issue 21709, 2 May 1934, Page 10

RANFURLY HOTEL FIRE

TRANSACTIONS OF LICENSEE AND WIFE FINES IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT “ Perjury is a crime affecting the administration of justice, and the making of false declarations, though not so serious, nevertheless gravely affects the conduct of men in business,” said Air Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court this morning, when Alexander Robert Spence and Alargaret Spence appeared for sentence on charges ofmaking false declarations and of attempted false pretence, charges which arose out of a fire at the Ranfurly Hotel. There were two charges of making false declarations against the male accused, one against the female accused, and the two accused were jointly charged with attempted false pretence. Air A. C. Hanlon. K.C., with him Air J. G. Warrington, appeared for the prisoners. Mr Hanlon said that the male prisoner was fifty-seven years of age, and had a family of four, of whom three were still alive. He came to New Zealand thirty-seven years ago, and followed farming as an occupation for five years, and was then engaged in dredging engineering for several years. He had kept a private boarding bouse in Stafford street, for seven years he was secretary of a gold dredging company, and he had been in an hotel for seven years. He bad never been ,in previous trouble except some small breaches of the Licensing Act. Counsel said he understood that the probation officer recommended probation, and Mr Hanlon submitted that as the prisoner’s character had been good previously His Honour might see his way clear to grant probation. As far as the prisoner Alargaret Spence was concerned, she was fifty years of age, and had been three and a-half years in New Zealand. She had been separated from her husband and was afterwards divorced •in Canada. She came into .contact with the male prisoner, and subsequently they were married. The probation officer did not recommend. probation, but on the contrary thought the wife was more blameworthy than the husband in connection with the commission of the offences. He did not wish to extenuate the actual offences, but for “ crass stupidity ” nothing could commend itself more than this particular case. He thought the copit might after hearing Dr Fitzgerald as to accused’s physical condition, which was extremely bad, be prepared to grant probation. The doctor recommended hospital .treatment. Dr G. P. Fitzgerald was called and gave evidence as to the state of .health of the female accused. For the prosecution, Air H. S. Adams said he .had nothing to add to the police report. , , , , His Honour said that the accused had been convicted upon very clear evidence of making false declarations which would amount to perjury if made on oath, and also of the offence of attempted false pretence. u Perjury is a crime that afreets the - administration of justice, and the leaking of false declarations, though not so serious, nevertheless greatly affects the conduct of men in business,” said His Honour. It was necessary that the sanctity of a declaration should/ be preserved, and lie found it necessary,to impose a penalty, though on consideration he saw the, way to impose a penalty other than that of imprisonment. The only difficulty he had was whether or not he should make some difference between the two prisoners, because the impression he formed was that the fefnale prisoner was, if anything, more implicated in the crimes committed than the male prisoner. In the end, however, he had come to the conclusion that he might impose, in respect of each, - the same penalty. Upon the first count Alexander Robert Spence would bo fined £IOO, and the court directed that if it were not paid within fourteen days he be imprisoned until the fine were paid, but for a term not exceeding six months. Upon the second count, instead of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he would be admitted to probation on the usual statutory conditions for a term of one year. Upon the third count Alargaret Spence was fined £IOO,, and the court directed that if not paid within fourteen days imprisonment be imposed until the fine was paid, but not exceeding a term of six months. On the remaining count the two accused were admitted to probation upon the usual statutory conditions for a term of one year.