A WIDOW'S TURKEYS.

Northern Advocate, 3 December 1921, Page 7

A WIDOW'S TURKEYS.

SENTENCING OF MAHER.

TWO MONTHS AND £100 FINE

James Maher, who was convicted by a, jury of receiving turkeys knowing them to be stolen, came before Mr Justice Reed for sentence at the Wanganai Supreme Court. «

Mr Cohen, who appeared for the prisoner, said that he was 50 years of age and had for the last 28 years lived or. .the same place, some eight mili)S from Ohingaiti. He had taken up a bush property there and by his own irdustry, assisted by that of his wife, had converted it into a beautiful property. He was a wealthy man, who had obtained his wealth by solid adherence to his owa business. The prisoner had no blemish on his character and he had not been previously be tore the Court. Unfortunately, suspicion was directed against Maher some few years ago for some offence which lind been attributed to him by interested parties. Mr Cohen said he was instruct ■ ed to state that there was no foundation for the imputation against Maher. The police keenly investigated the case, and the prisoner also employed a. fum of detectives and investigated the matter fully, but no acti<m was taken. Tlie object of the prisoner's inquiry was to give what assistance he eouVl in discovering the real offender and for obtaining such information as would enable him to ventilate the matter, and to take action for slander against the persons who had promulgated the allegations. A partisanship grew out of this matter in the district and those who were opposed to the prisoner were energetic in the promulgation of the slander and the perpetuation of it. The better class of farmer* and residents qf the district did not believe the slander and never had. The jury had brought in a verdict of guilty of receiving stolen turkeys, five or seven, valued at £3 or £4, if as much. It was difficult for him to conceive sny possible motive why the prisoner, after 2S years' honourable life in the district, should become the victim of a desire to proceed at midnight in the winter time, 12 miles, and steal a few paltry turkeys from a woman he hardly knew, and against whom he had no grievance. Mr Cohen said he felt the responsibility of saying that never in his experience had a stranger, before he ever stood his trial, been known to the immediate population of the town as a bad and wicked man. He suggested that the jury which tried this case had information

His Honour: "I can't allow you to say anything against the jury." He added that they were not present. Mr Cohen alleged that there had been disseminated by interested parties things to the disadvantage of the prisoner before the week of the sitting of the Supreme Court. He did not suggest that the jury had in any way been tampered with; there was no suggestion of that. He remarked upon how difficult it was once a slander had been propagated, to stop it. He noticed that the police report referred to Maher as being a vindictive man. He suggested that the officer who prepared the report must be one of those who belisved in the guilt of the prisoner in the matter already referred td. He submitted that a man must have been governed by a mad impulse to conceive and carry out or even take part in a crime which involved so paltry a gain when he had built up a fortune for his wife and children. Mr Cohen suggested that the Court should grant the prisoner probation, for the prisoner was stunned by the conviction and enduring stain that would be left on his character, and the sting of it would hurt his children. He submittpd that the conviction wjis

itself a great punishment. Mr Coheu strongly reinforced his pleadings as an advocate with a statement as to his personal knowledge of the prisoneer, and he urged that he should be granted probation.

His Honour said that the jury Tuml found the prisoner guilty of a particularly contemptible crime, contemptible for two reasons: He was no driven through necessity to take the turkeys, and .secondly, that the jury, by its verdict, inferred that -he acquiesced in if he did not take part in the crime. The prisoner was a man of considerable wealth; he was reputed to be worth £100,000. If it was a case of a poor man who, through want, took the turkeys for, the purpose of supplying that want, or the case of sporismen who, passing through a place where there were tame turkeys, with no consideration, shot and stole them, one might view the case with a little sympathy. Such cases would warrant treatment he Honour) could /iot extend to the prisoner. It was urged by counsel when addressing .the jury, and he urged it again, that it was impossible to suggest a motive for a man of wealth to go at the dead of night in a luxurious motor car and steal aomo turkeys. The motive was very difficult t" see; one had to go baek to Biblical history for a motive for such a crime that might fit this case. This was an anecdote in Samuel: —"And the L'or.t sent Nathan unto David. And he camc unto him and said unto liimr There were two meat in one city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks :.nd herds, but- the poor nlan had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which li;j had brought and nourished up, and it grew up together with him and with his children; it did eat of his own me-it and drank of his own cup, and lay in iris bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man and he spare ! to take of his own flock, and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring :nan that was come unto him, but took the poor man's lamb and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan: 'As the Lord liveth the man eh <t hath done this thing shall die. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold because he had no pity.' " His Honour, proceeding, said ih 't the motive in that case was sheer greed, but he could not say what was the motive in the case of the prisoner. Tho Probation Officer had reported on the prisoner. Although he had not been previously convicted of any crime, the report suggested that his general character was not good, he was suspected of various offences, distrusted by his neighbours and feared by many of the community as a vindictive man. His Honour added that in considering the sentence he was about to impose he had not taken the above report into consid eration, the prisoner might be perfectly innocent of the suspicion against him, but the sentence was based on the actual facts of the present case. The werdict of the jury inferred by its finding that the prisoner authorised, if he did not take actual part in, a very deliberate scheme. In a valuable motor car they set out at midnight, either he or his agents, with the deliberate intention of robbing a widow, and he afterwards sought to establish his case by committing deliberate perjury. Hin Honour's sentence was two months' imprisonment, the prisoner to pay in addition a fine of £100 and to pay the costs of Court, £31 10s <sd, also to make restitution of the value of the two turkeys, which he assessed at £1; in default of payment of the fine a further | term of imprisonment for four months i at the expiration of the two months.