ARSON AND THEFT

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 11491, 19 November 1931, Page 3

ARSON AND THEFT

SERIOUS CHARGES IN ' JUVENILE COURT.

TWO YOUTHS PLACED ON PROBATION!

Serious charges, alleged arson and theft were preferred against' three youths who anpcnredjirv the. Juvenile Court yesterday before ‘Mr. P. HHamer| S.M. They were charged with wilfully setting fire to a building and on a prior date stealing two rugs valued at £6O, the location of the offences Being a .country district. One Ihd denied, both charges, and the informations against him were dismissed, as was also an alternative charge of receiving the stolen property. The other two were admitted to 'probation' for three years. one admitting both charges,. while the other pleaded, guilty to the charge of arson, but denied the charge ol theft; when the theft charge was a'mended to one of receiving, however, the accused entered a plea of guilty. . Detective McLeod represented the police, and Mr. J. S. Waucbop appeared for the lad against whom the charges failed, while Mr. E. T. Brosnnhan nrmcared for the youth who admitted both charges.', and Mr. A. A. Whitehead for the other. The Magistrate said the throe youths had been charged with most serious offences. The ' fact ■ that the prosecutions had been transferred to the Ch'ldren’.s Court in no way mitigated the seriousness of the offence. One youth had pleaded guilty to charges of arson and theft, and another guilty On the arson charge. The third youth had pleaded not guilty to Both charges. . Arson is a serious crime, and one for which the Act provided a, penalty of up to imprisonment for life. He felt quite sure none of,the three accused had realised the serious nature of the offences. They had given as an excuse the fact that the building was old and practically worthless, but they must have known that it could not. be destroyed without the knowledge or consent of the owner. Two ol the youths had admitted participation in 1 the setting fire of the building. The other youth, however, appeared to have taken no actual part in the burning of the building, but he did not" take steps to deter the others, and lie was therefore as much to Blame. If he could not have prevented the others he could have given the alarm to the owner. He did not think the evidence against this youth was'sufficient to warrant a conviction. His conduct was reprehensible but that was the most that could be said, and he could not in law he held guilty of arson unless ho had taken part in the act. In regard to the stolen rings they had been left in the washhouse and taken from there bv one youth and shown to another lad, the one against whom the arson charge had failed. At that time it was clear that the third youth was not present as he was in hospital. The youth ot whom the rings were shown knew thev belonged to- the wife of his employer, but- he took no steps to inform her. He, however, had been charged with theft, hut ho (the Magistrate) did not know whether the evidence was sufficiently strong enough to convict on that charge. He was further charged with receiving the stolen rings and it had been shown that when the youth who stole the rings had thrown them into the river the other youth had done nothing to prevent him. Strictly speaking, if it could bo shown that he had aided in concealing or disposing of the property he was guilty of receiving. At the. same time lie did not consider that lie was culpably negligent in taking no active steps to prevent the rings being thrown away, or to inform the owner. The accused would be given the benefit of the doubt, and the charge would Be dismissed. The only one who could be found guilty of theft was the lad who actually stole the rings, continued the magistrate. The lad who threw them into the river was also charged with theft, but properlv lie should have been ' charged with receiving, and the magistrate proposed to exercise his power to amend the charge of theft to one of receiving, to which the accused then pleaded guilty. ' The ringleader in the burning oi the building, continued the magistrate, appeared to bo the youth who had thrown the rings into the river, and it was at his suggestion that the other lad took part in setting fire to the building. He proposed to deal with the two accused under hection 242 of the Justices of the Peace Act. Neither bad been in serious trouble before, and both were, young men on the thresho’d of life, aml ho did not wish to be hard on them on this occasion. , The seriousness oi their actions must be impressed upon them, however, and the best way to do that was to subject them to a long term of probation. Both the accused were admitted to probation for three years, and were ordered to make restitution of the value of the stolen property, in the event of their failure to recover the rings from the river. At the suggestion of counsel, the magistrate imposed a further condition that the accused should return to their homes.