PUNISHED FOE CRIME.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18189, 7 September 1922, Page 9

PUNISHED FOE CRIME.

PRISONERS SENTENCED.

DIVORCEE NOT A BACHELOR.

FALSE DECLARATION MADE.

Is'ine prisoners, who had pleaded guilty to various offences in tho Police Court., came before Mr. Justice Herdman at the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence.

By describing himself as a bachelor to the registrar of marriages at Hamilton in May, 1920, when he was a divorcee with his former wife still living, Frederick Sterling made himself liable for a charge of bigamy, stated Mr. V. JR. Meredith, for the Crown„ That charge had not been prosecuted, however, because proof of the former marriage could not be obtained without the production of a witness from England. False declaration under the Marriage Act was, therefore, alleged. The woman with whom he had gone through tho form of marriago had been placed in an unfortunate position. An excellent war service record was submitted on the prisoner's behalf and he was also tho subject of favourable reports' by police and probation officer. His Honor imnosed a fine of £5, and ordered Sterling to pay the costs of the action, in default, one months' imprisonment. He exhorted Sterling to look after tho woman he had purported to marry, when a marriage ui proper form might follow.

Although he was only 17 years of age, a serious record of crime was quoted against Alfred Richardson (Mr. ■Singer), when he was called to answer to two charges of breaking, entering and theft, at Auckland. Hjs Honor informed the prisoner that the report of the probation officer was very unsatisfactory. Convictions recorded in Australia ranged back to 1917. and the prisoner had not been long in New Zealand before ho got into mischief. Ho would be sentenced to two years' reformative detention on each charge, the fcentences to be concurrent.

Three charges of false pretences, forgery and uttering at Morrinsville were preferred against Te Teira Te Puhi, a Maori, who, His Honor said, had been in gaol for several offences since 1916. Leniency did not seem apnlicable in this case and the prisoner was sentenced to two years' hard labour on each charge, sentences to be concurrent.

Another unsatisfactory police report was that relating to John Charles Coman, who was guilty of theft of mails from a boat. Coman was stated to have been consorting with reputed criminals in the past two months. His Honor said there were no previous convictions recorded against the prisoner. He would bo sentenced to six months' hard labour.

Breaking, entering and theft, theft, and theft from a dwelling, were the charges •against Sydney Herbert Gordon Doyle, who made a statement in mitigation that he had lost a good job, owing to his employers hearing that he had a criminal record. His Honor refused a request for reformative treatment, and imposed a sentence erf" two years on each charge, sentences to be concurrent.

Sudden temptation was urged by Mr Blakey on behalf of Thomas Leslie Walton, who was charged with the theft from a carrier of a suitcase, valued at £28, the property of Arthur Crombie. The prisoner subsequently pawned the suitcase for £1, and sold the ticket for ss. It was stated that Walton was prepared to make full restitution, as he was in regular employment. He bore a good character, but appeared to have got into his present trouble by wandering about the country with an entertainment company and drinking. His Honor admitted the prisoner to probation for two years, on condition that he made restitution within 12 months of the sum of £29 15s, and maintained a prohibition order against himself during his period of probation. He was also prohibited from joining any companiea of entertainers. '