PENALTIES FOR CRIME

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8683, 17 March 1914, Page 7

PENALTIES FOR CRIME

PRISONERS SENTENCED

OF BURGLARIES IX XAPIER. A number of prisoners appeared before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) for sentence yesterday afternoon. FORGED CHEQUES. Two charges of forgery and uttering had been admitted by an elderly man named Samuel Ford, who handed up a written statement. One offence was committed at Marten and the other at Auckland. His Honour remarked that in his .statement the prisoner said that the cheque at Marton was signed by another man; but he did not say who th© man was. The signature on this cheque was very like prisoner’s own writing on the other cheque. His Honour added that according to law he could split the charges in two, when the accused would be liable to be declared an habitual criminal. Prisoner had already served six months for breaking, entering and theft in 1906; six months for forgery at Wanganui in 1908; and a month’s hard labour for false pretences in 1911. The fact that he had a wife and family was a reason why he should receive greater instead of less punishment, because he comnlitted crimes when there were others dependent on him. “You have no Proper sense of your duty,” His Honour continued, “or you would not be in this position'now. I will not declare you an habitual criminal this time, but will give you another chance.” Accused was sentenced to eighteen months’ hard labour on each charge, the terms to be concurrent. AN ISLANDER’S CRIME. Pukurua Marama, a stalwart young man of Polynesian type, had pleaded guilty to breaking, entering and theft from a dwelling at Paremata. “What do you mean,” asked His Honour, “by saying you are a native of North America ? Y r ou were bom in New Zealand, were you not?” ’ Th© Crown Prosecutor (Mr H. H. Ostler) replied; by stating that according to the police reports, the man was a Rarotongan; but he believed the accused came from Palmerston Island.

His Honour pointed out that prisoner had committed two offences here, and the worst feature was that he had threatened that when was released he would assault the porter who gave the information against him. His Honour thought it best to see if the Prisons Board could do anything for the accused and got him away from the place. He would be sentenced to two years’ reformatory treatment, and could apply to the board in a few months to see what they would do for him. THE'NAPIER BURGLARIES.

Two men under middle age, Richard Carpenter and David Conway Burn, were brought forward for sentence for burglaries at Napier. Carpenter had pleaded guilty to sixteen charges of breaking, entering, and theft, and Burns had admitted two charges in which he was associated with the other accused.

A written statement was put in by Carpenter, and Mr O’Leary appeared to ask for leniency for Burns. ; Mr O’Leary stated that Burn was a man who was easily led. What brought about the commission of his crimes was that he became acquainted with Carpenter, and was influenced by him to commit the two offences to which he had pleaded guilty at Napier. After these offences he told Carpenter he had had enough to do with him. This seemed apparent, because Carpenter went on with twelve more offences, in which Burn did not participate. Burn con-tinued-working until ho was arrested, at the beginning of this year, and for a period of nine months after the commission of the offences with which he was charged he led An honest, straightforward life. He seemed to have a chance of becoming a proper citizen. Counsel could not ask that probation bo granted, because, sis years ago, When in Dunedin, the accused was convicted Of a petty theft and ordered to Come up for sentence When called upon. From that time until he met Carpenter he apparently . led ah honest life. Mr O’Leary produced a letter from a sta-tion-holder iil Hawke’s Bay testifying to the honesty of the accused while ill his employ, subsequent to the offence with which he Was charged. Hie position of accused’s family, Mr O’Leary added, was unfortunate. He was married two years ago, a child was born last April, and his Wife was again expectant, and she and the child were in receipt of charitable aid. Counsel asked His Honour, for the sake of the prisoner’s family, to order him to come up for sentence wheii called upon. Mr Ostler bore out the facts submitted by Mr O’Leary, And stated that the police considered Burn Was a tool of the other mail. , , In regard to Carpenter, Mr Ostler said that that prisoner had written a letter to the detective, and as it was very much in accused’s favour, he (the prosecutor) wotiid like itis llonour to look at it. His Honour said he had a letter from Dr Fyffo stating that Carpenter was in a very bad state Of health. Mr Ostler mentioned that Carpenter had given the police every assistance to recover what was stolen. FEAR OF STARVATION.

“This case is very peculiar,” his Honour commented. “Apparently Carpenter went into this trouble because he was unable to do proper work, owing to ill-health. He had rheumatic fever, and after that his heart was affected to Such an extent that, Dr Fyffe says, he is now unable to do any work. Prisoner says his wife had two children, and his stepdaughter was ill, and the money lie stole was to save them from starvation. Of course, that is no excuse.” His Honour added that in view of the doctor’s letter it Was no use sending the man to imprisonment. He would sentence him on the present charges to a term of two years’ imprisonment concurrent with what he was now serving in respect of charges from Auckland, and without hard labour. Respecting the two charges in which he was associated with Burn, so that there might be a control over him if his heart improved, he would be ordered to come itp for sentence when called upon. If he came before the* court again- he would be made an habitual criminal, Burn! was ordered to come up for sentence when called nponj His Honour remarking that this would give him another chance, A STOWAWAY. Breach of his probation order was the conviction against a young man

from Martinborough named Leslie McKee. It appeared that the accused had stowed away on a steamer for Lyttelton. His Honour : “Did you not have your license, which would not allow you to go to the South Island? 1 ” Accused: “I was transferred to Christchurch.”

His Honour inquired What the offence was.

Mr Ostler said he had not had any report on the matter. Hi'? Honour stated that the accused (who had handed in a statement) had been working in Mnrtinborough. Accused said he was transferred to Christchurch and had no money, and that at Wellington ho stowed away on a steamer to get to Lyttelton. “Is that all you did?” he asked the accused. “That’s all, Your Honour," was the reply. Hits Honour: “You should not have done that.” Mr Ostler intimated that what the accused had stated was correct. In answer to a further question from the Bench, McKco stated that he was arrested on the boat at Lyttelton. His Honour said he would give the accused another chance. Ho advised him to. try to get some work to do, in order to obtain the money for his fare.