CRIMES PUNISHED

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9045, 17 May 1915, Page 3

CRIMES PUNISHED

A BATCH OF PRISONERS CHIEF JUSTICE COMMENTS ON EFFECTS OF DU INK. The finale to the criminal cases tried at the present sessions of the Supremo Court in Wellington was enacted on Saturday .morning, when a number of prisoners were sentenced by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout!. A TOO PREVALENT OFFENCE. Henry Morgan Dwyer had been found guilty of indecent assault on a four-year-old girl at AVellingtou. Mr H. F. Ayson appeared for the prisoner, and stated that Dwyer was 42 years of nge, and up to the present offence had a good record, except that he was convicted once for breach of a prohibition order. Ho had been in custody for three months awaiting his trial. His Honour said, ho could not . give probation in a case of this sort. Unfortunately this class of offence seemed to be prevalent iri some districts in the colony. He believed, however, that the whole cause of the prisoner’s fall was drink —a view which was emphasised by the probation officer’s report. Dwyer had gone voluntarily to Roto Roa and stayed there a few months, but this had no effect. His Honour believed that, but for the drinking, the accused would not have committed this offence. “Drinking weakens the will power,” commented the learned judge. “If we go on drinking as we do, we.will have crime for ever with us.” The sentence wa.s four vears’ reformative treatment.' 1 THE CORINTHIC’S MAILS. James Andrews, found guilty of dishonestly receiving mail matter on the s.s. Corinthic, handed in a written statement. His Honour, after reading this, remarked that Andrews still persisted in declaring his innocence. “1 don’t believe you,” added His Honour, who went on to point out that the theft of goods on board ship was a more serious offence than theft ashore, and that the prisoner was liable to a sentence of seven years. As far as this court knew, the present was the accused’s first offence. He would bo dealt with leniently, because he was yet a young man. Andrews was sentenced to eighteen, months’ hard labour. : .REFORMATIVE TREATMENT. John Dalton, Alexander Robinson, and /William Tyler were up for sentence for having assaulted Richard Hugh Bennett with intent to rob him, in a convenience at the rear of Barrett’s Hotel. When the prisoners were asked what they had to say, Dalton said that ho had not been in trouble before, ami that ho would try to get work on a Homeward-bound ship; Robinson. was silent, and. Tyler put in a written statement. His Honour said that this was not Robinson’s first offence; there were ten previous convictions against him, including mostly oases of theft and drunkenness. ' The , Chief Justice again pointed to tho influence of drink in sending the accused to a career of crime, and . said that if . Robinson, committed another offence ho would be liable to an indeterminate sentence, and might never get out of prison again. Ho was only twentyfive years of ago, and his conduct was very stupid. Nothing was known against' Dalton, except that lie gave wav to drink. There wore several convictions against Tyler, and all three men were simply the products of drink. Tvler and Robinson would be sentenced to two years’ reformative treatment, with a. recommendation that they be sent to Invercargill, where they would got efficient training. Dalton was an older man. but ho would receive the same sentence of two years’ reformative treatment.. (BURNING OF THE WHITE HORSE HOTEL. The next case dealt with was that of Arthur George Young, who had pleaded guilty to setting the White Horse Hotel bn fire. Mr T. M. Wilford, appearing for the prisoner, said that, although the insurance company lost the money, w'ben they came to settle up the insurance was for a larger sum than they had since paid over. Young voluntarily stated to the company that a piano, insured for £3O, was not in the building when the fire took place. There was £BO in tho possession of Pentecost, of which £6O, counsel understood; was owing to Young, and the former was willing •to return this on an order from •Young, who would have it handed back to the company. Counsel added that Young had done the best he could for Balch, who was innocent, and his evidence went a long way in clearing him. Young’s past reputation was unblemished. He had been carrying on a boardinghouse and had lost his money, and he saw an opportunity of getting it in an easy way. He had been in prison for some months : before the trial. The Chief Justice referred to what might have been the position if any life had been endangered by the fire. Ho was going to deal leniently with the prisoner in the present instance, because of his past character and the fact that he had pleaded guilty. The sentence would be twelve months’ hard labour. BRIANT GRANTED PROBATION. When the ex-civil servants Ernest Alfred Welsh and James Gibson Briant, found guilty of attempting to steal a cheque for £790, were placed in the dock, His Honour stated that sentence on Welsh would be deferred until today, as ho had further inquiries to make.

Mr P. W. Jacksorl, on behalf of Briant, asked that probation be granted. Briant was purely a first offender, and still a young man. He was an industrious and studious man, of considerable ability.’ He was what might be called a spasmodic drinker; he had “bursts” of drinking for a week or so, and was then a teetotaller for months. When he had been indulging, ho seemed to be easily led. Ho was a married man with two children,. who were living in Now South Wales. This was no fault of his, and it was because of his being separated from his wife and family that he took to drink occasionally. He was living with his mother, and -was very good to her.

His Honour admitted Briant to probation for two years, with the conditions that he must not visit hotels nor taste alcohol during that ■ period, and that ho must take out a prohibition order against himself. His Honour added that ho would make no order as to costs, because Briant had been twenty-four years in the Government service, had an honourable character, and had lost his position. , TWO YEARS’ HARD LABOUR.

John Johnston had been, found guilty of assaulting Eric Toulson, a member of the expeditionary force, so as te cause him actual bodily harm. The af-

fray took place in Manners street, and Toulsou’s jaw was; broken /in two lilaces. ■ ■ - .Mr Jackson said 'the prisoner was not a first offender, but his previous offences were not of a very serious nature. There were two convictions for theft, for which light sentences were Imposed, and two for assault, one case being an assault on the police. Although the accused, struck Toalson,-probably no on© was more surpiised than he. at the injury he had caused. His Honour said he was not going to inflict the utmost punishment which the law allowed, but he could not overlook the. accused’s record, lie had been sentenced to a month’s hard labour in the Transvaal in June of last year, and lie had no sooner arrived in Now-Zea-land than he was in trouble for assaultFor the present offence, Johnston was sentenced to two years’ hard labour. EMBEZZLEMENT CHARGES. Barclay Hvctor, who has . jileaded guilty to charges of embezzlement of University funds totalling £837 18s Bd, will be sentenced this morning. ,■