MRS. EDOLS

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 June 1934, Page 9

MRS. EDOLS

SENTENCES IMPOSED SYDNEY, May 31. Mr. Justice Haise Rogers, in the Central Criminal Court yesterday, sentenced Mrs Aimee Belle Edols to three terms of imprisonment. He said that they would really mean that, with remissions, she would serve 12 months’ detention from yesterday. One sentence ..was a sequel to her conviction on Monday of having obtained credit by fraud, and the others weie imposed for offences to which she pleaded guilty yesterday. She was remanded for trial on three charges of stealing, but his Honor suggested that it would not be proper to proceed with them. Mr. McKean, K.C., said he would convey his Honor’s remarks to the proper authorities. When Mr. Justice Haise Rogers took his seat in Court, Mr. Moverley (for Mrs Edols) asked for a short adjournment to enable him to confer with his client about another charge of obtaining credit by fraud. After an adjournment of half an hour, Mrs Edols was charged on three counts that in November and December, 1929, being a person against whom a sequestration order had been made under the Bankruptcy Act, 1924-1930, she, in incurring a debt or liability to Adrian Tollemache Edwards, of Sydney, obtained credit to the amounts of £l5OO, £l5OO, and £950 by means of fraud. She pleaded guilty to the three counts.

Mrs Edols was then charged that between June 1, 1.926, and June 5. 1931, being a bankrupt against whom a sequestration order had been made, she contributed to her bankruptcy by gambling, in that she lost at racecourses a sum of £14,000. She pleaded guilty. Mr. McKean, K.C. (Senior Crown Prosecutor), then said that he wished to present three indictments on Dehalf of the State and she was charged that, on July "28, 1930, she stole £lOO, on August 1, 1930, £llOO, on August 5, 1930, £3OO, and on August 11, 1930, £l5OO, the property of Percy Reginald McConnell. She pleaded not guilty to those counts, and was remanded for trial. FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS Sir Thomas Bavin, K.C. (for the Commonwealth), dealing with the debt to Mr. Edwards, said Mrs Edols had asked Mr. Edwards, who was a relative, to call and see her. She told him that she wanted £l5OO to liclp a member of her family. In all, she obtained £3950 by false representations. But the gravamen of the charge was that she used her family relationships, and then, out of gratitude, professed to put Mr. Edwards on to an investment. His Honor: Was all the money lost? Sir Thomas Bavin: No: several hundreds were paid as interest. It

was a carefully arranged swindle, planned in an ingenious way. Mrs Edols has herself admitted that there was no investment, and’that the money had been spent largely on gambling. Mr. Badham (for the Commonwealth) then read an affidavit by Mrs Edols about her gambling transactions. Mr. Moverley (for Mrs Edols) said Mrs Edols had been in prison for two and a-half years. It had taken six months to bring her to trial. His Honor: Why did it take so long? It is obviously not right that'a person should be kept waiting for five or six months. Sir Thomas Bavin: The only explanation is that the matter had to go to the Federal Attorney-General. His Honor: Even slow-moving Government departments ought not to keep a person in gaol so long for trial. If there is no explanation it calls for the strongest comment. Sir Thomas Bavin said that Mrs Edols was in gaol for contempt, and if she had purged her contempt she would not have been kept in gaol. She was not really in gaol awaiting trial, because she had secured bail, but could not be released.

CREDULITY OF PEOPLE.” His Honor said it seemed to him that his duty as a Judge was perfectly clear. The credulity of the people who handed over the money did not touch the gravity of the offences. The matters raised by Mr. Moverley should be taken into consideration by the Federal authorities, who had the duty of dealing with any application for remission of sentence. The delay in bringing the charges -was a matter with which he could deal in imposing sentence. In the- case that was tried on Monday he considered that he should pass sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, to date from January 1 last; the sentence in the Edwards matters would be 12 months’ imprisonment, cumulative, and to commence at the expiration of the first sentence; and, on the charge of gambling, 12 months, concurrent with the first sentence. They were maximum sentences, but, with the ordinary remissions, Mrs Edols should serve altogether 12 months’ detention. His Honor added that, having looked at the indictment filed in regard to the stealing charges, it would appear that they were really the same matter that was tried on Monday. The maximum penalty that might have been imposed was live years’ imprisonment, but, in view of the fact that the State charges -were held over until Monday's case had been disposed of, His Honor did not think he would be interfering by suggesting that it would not be proper to proceed with those charges. No one should be tried twice for the same offence.