THEFT OF MICROSCOPE

Evening Star, Issue 22638, 3 May 1937, Page 11

THEFT OF MICROSCOPE

THREE*YEAR*OLD OFFENCE YOUNG PROFESSIONAL MAN DISCHARGED PROCEEDINGS " A SHEER WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY " “ You, have already received a far heavier punishment than anything. this court might be disposed to inflict,” said Mr Justice Kennedy . in . the Supreme Court this morning in directing that a young man accused of the theft of a microscope, the property of the University of Otago, some three years ago should ho discharged. The theft was committed while the accused, who"Ts no w“a dentist in practice in the north, was a student, the court concurring, with counsel in the statement that only the fact that three years- had elapsed since its commission was responsible for the case, being brought on as an indictable matter before the Supreme Court. The Crown Prosecutor remarked that it was most unfortunate that » comparatively small offence such as this shbuld be brought to the higher court merely because it happened to be old.' Such. a ; course he considered a sheer waste of time and money. , Mr C. J. L. 1 White addressed the court before entering a plea on behalf of the accused, saying that the circumstances of. the case were very unusual, and that he wished to make application for it to be dealt with under section 18 of -the Offenders’ Probation: Act. Counsel then reviewed in detail the history of the case, pointing out that an act. of folly on the part of this young man while a student was now threatening to jeopardise his career as a professional man. The offence, it would ho noted, was three years old. The young man came to the Otago University when he. was 18, and very foolishly wasted his time. After two years had Eassed he began to realise the folly of is conduct, and made a real effort to make up the ground he had lost in his course. That course occupied four years, but ..the accused found himself two years behind. His father was incensed, but with his mother’s help he was able to stay on. He then applied himself, to intensive work. In December, 1933, he sustained a great loss in the death of his mother. This coincided with his final examination, in which he failed. He was desperate, but found that if he could stay the distance until May of the following year there was a special examination in which he could sit. He had no money, and was frightened to put the position before his father, and during those five months lived a hand-to-mouth existence. In order to keep himself going he pawned some of his own effects. The microscope was also pawned during this , time. His desperate efforts to keep himself going were rewarded, for he did pass his final examination.

, In October of 1934 he was successful in obtaining a practice in the north, his father paying the necessary deposit on the understanding that he would repay it in 'instalments. The debts he had contracted were still owing, and when his creditors found that he had commenced practice they began to press him. In the meantime he married, and now had a child. He persevered, and at the end of last year got free of his old debts. 'His practice improved, but trouble overtook him again when tlm microscope case arose. Kven worse was to follow. He thought the matter could bo dealt with rapidly and summarily, but found that, owing to the lapse of

time, it had become an indictable offence. . . „

Counsel here pointed out that if a conviction were entered in such a case an application might be made for his name to bo removed from the register of his profession The accused had made two trips to Dunedin, and had paid the pawnbroker £9 in full settlement of his liability so that the microscope could be returned to the University, and he had also suffered considerable loss of business as a result of the criminal proceedings.

“ Had it not been for the disastrous loss of time, the case would have been dealt with ey a magistrate,” said Mr White, “ and I suggest that the magistrate would not have entered a conviction, but would have adopted some other course. There was never any intention of disputing the facts or defending the proceedings. The name of the accused was suppressed in the lower court, but already he has been punished with extreme severity. Ho was in a desperate plight,, and has made, good since, and a conviction might indeed prove disastrous to him ; ,now.” The Crown Prosecutor said that the facts as outlined by Mr White were correctly slated. ■ Mr Adams agreed that ;it~ was,"m<?st .unfortunate that a comparatively small, offence such ,ns this should be brought to the Supreme Court merely because it' happened to bo old, To compel such cases to be taken to the Supreme Court was a sheer waste of time and money. It would have been a fairer and less severe way of dealing with the accused if the case had been disposed of at the first hearing. Mr Adams said that the police and he himself would make no objection to a plea that the accused be granted the utmost leniency. •'

After the accused had entered a plea of guilty, His Honour said that the offence, was three, years old, and was committed while the accused was a student and in circumstances of extreme pressure. The case came before the Supreme Court only because, through a lapse of time, it could not be dealt'with in. a’lower'court. “You have already received a far heavier punishment than anything this court might be disposed to inflict,” said His Honour, addressing the accused. “If you had not received that punishment the court would still be disposed to exercise the powers conferred by the Offenders’ Probation Act, and would have placed you on probation instead of imposing a term of imprisonment. The Act gives the court power to direct an accused person to be discharged, and I consider that this is an exceptional case in xvhich the court should exercise that power. Tho accused will be discharged.” Mr White asked that the name of the accused should be suppressed, and His Honour concurred.