AN EXPERT BURGLAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14849, 28 November 1911, Page 8

AN EXPERT BURGLAR.

THE KOHN ROBBERY.

HEAVY SENTENCES IMPOSED.

STATEMENT MY MALE ACCUSED.

Sentences were passed by Mr.. Justice Chapman in the Supreme Court yesterday on William Rodgers, found guilty of breaking and entering the premises of the late Mr. A. Kohn last March, and Maud Rodgers, charged with receiving goods stolen from Kohn's establishment. Mr. A. G. Quartly appeared for the accused.

On being asked if he had anything to say, William Rodgers, in a clear voice, made a short statement. He said his wifo had' been found guilty of receiving, and he wished to state that she was totally ignorant of the burglary until they were arrested in San Francisco. He told her that ho had come by the jewellery honestly, and he did not tell her anything about the robbery. He pleaded that his wife had already been in custody for seven months, during which time she had undergone a great deal of suffering. In America sho had been subjected to the third degree by the police authorities, and in all respects she had had a trying time, '"I wish Your Honor to take these facts into consideration," he concluded. Maud Rodgers merely shook her head when asked if she wished to make any statement. His Honor, in passing sentence, said : William Rodger*, I regard you as an expert burglar. You will bo sentenced to five years' imprisonment with hard labour, to be followed by four years' reformatory treatment." Referring to Maud Rodgers, His Honor said ho did not know whether sho was the wife of Rodger? or not, and he did not believe there was any truth in the statement made by Rodgers. A sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, to bo followed by two years' reformatory treatment, was imposed. "I wish to give notice of appeal, Your Honor," remarked Rodgers in a somewhat defiant tone as he left the dock. i PREMISES EASILY ENTERED.

DUTY OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

After the prisoners had left the dock, His Honor said that this was a case where the police could have done nothing more than they did. They patrolled outside and the shop was lighted so that they could see into it. It is a case, continued His Honor, that shows that owners of valuable property could do more to assist the, police. The premises were no doubt well lighted, but there, may have been an accomplice about who could have given a signal when the police were coming. His Honor said that this was not the only case that had come before him in which he bad been obliged to notice that precaution was taken in one direction and neglected in another. Kohn's premises were quit© easily entered, and there was a very large number of premises in which valuable, goods were kept, both in Auckland and Wellington, which were very easily entered. A highly expert burglar could get into any place, but owners shoidd make their premises more secure. His Honor said that the remarks concerning Kobn's premises applied to many other premises in Auckland, and it was the duty of owners, to the public and to the police, to take expert advice as to making their premises secure.