CRIMINALLY BENT

Evening Star, Issue 21709, 2 May 1934, Page 9

CRIMINALLY BENT

TWO BURGLARS SENTENCED HARD LABOUR FOR TWO YEARS IMPOSED Sentences of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour were imposed on Eric Norman Vincent and George Dore on charges of breaking, entering, and theft of shops by Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court to-day. Vincent appeared for sentence on two charges and .Dore on one charge. _ “ I cannot say anything in mitigation of the offences, as they , are of a serious nature,” said Mr C. J. L. White, on behalf of Vincent. The depression was blamed for many things, particularly in connection with crimes of this nature, but he did not think it could be gainsaid that Vincent’s downfall was due to unfortunate circumstances. He was a married man, thirtytwo years of age, and had resided in Dunedin practically all his life. He had a family of five young children. He was a cadet in the New Zealand railways, but he was ambitious and went farming. That was_ unsuccessful. He then worked for various grocers in and about Dunedin, and finally went into business on his own account. The business went into liquidation. Nothing daunted, he took a correspondence course in salesmanship in an endeavour to improve himself. He obtained employment -as an insurance agent, and later became a branch manager in Auckland. Bad luck upset him, as the company went into liquidation. He was then thrown on to unemployment relief, and struggled along on £1 17s 6d a week. It seemed that recently lie had given way to drinking and to set out on an expedition when under the influence of liquor was not the act of a master criminal. It indicated an amateur status. A significant fact was that the shop broken into was a butcher’s premises, and that meat only was stolen. When his house was thoroughly searched there .was no stolen property found, and the house was practically foodless. Vincent came fefore the ■ court as a first offender in crimes of dishonesty. He felt •■his position very keenly. Dore was concerned only with the crime of entering and theft of the butcher’s shop, said Mr White. - He also was a married man, thirty-eight years old, with a family of five young children. Efe had an excellent war service abroad. He was not in trouble till 1925, and he came before the court in 1928 on a charge of dishonesty, on which he was ordered to come up for sentence. _ In the following year he was admitted to probation on two charges involving dishonesty. It was not till 1930 that he faced a serious charge, when he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard. labour. Since his release from prison he had been unable to get work, and his children had been short of food and clothing. There was no doubt that the degeneration of Dore was a comparatively recent affair. The police reported that he was a good worker, but that he was addicted to drink and was more or less easily led when under the influence of liquor. “ The nature of your crime and your previous conduct unfortunately make it too clear that you are 'bent on following a criminal course,” said the judge, addressing Dore. “ You have been frequently before the court for sentence upon charges involving dishonesty, and it appears that as recently as 1930 you were before the. court for breaking, entering, : and theft. Whatever the circumstances of your home, you appear to have had money to spend on liquor. The probation officer’s report js, as it well might be, very unfavourable.” . • / Dore was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Vincent’s crimes were committed by night, and both offences appeared to have been carefully planned and to have ■heen executed with some of the cunning and audacity of experience, said His Honour. He, too, appeared to-be drifting definitely into a criminal course. He also had money to spend on liquor, whatever the circumstances of his home, and His Honour could not think, especially in regard’to the crime of breaking, entering, and theft in a tobacconist’s shop that Vincent’s conduct was to be explained as due to the pressure of circumstances. The probation officer’s report was very unfavourable. The sentence would be imprisonment for two years with hard labour on both charges, the sentences to be concurrent.