FOUR YEARS’ GAOL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 11046, 1 November 1921, Page 5

FOUR YEARS’ GAOL

THE HOPKINS CASE SEQUEL TO A SENSATIONAL BANKRUPTCY. “PERSISTENT DISHONESTY.” Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, October 31. “I would be failing in my duty to the public if I did not impose a sentence which would mark the prisoner’s conduct as a serious offence,” said Mr Justice Adams in the Supreme Court to-day, in sentencing William Allan Hopkins, land agent, to four years' imprisonment, with hard labour, on four charges—two of theft and two of failing to account. Mr F. W. Johnston, counsel for the defence, said that when Hopkins first took the money he had really no intent to deprive any one and at tho time he filed as a bankrupt his health was such that he bad surrendeed to the authorities at Sunhyside Mental Hospital. He was a voluntary patient at this institution for three months, and subsequently he went to Wellington. where he stayed with relatives. Prisoner was 63 years of age and had been aged in appearance by his troubles. In a recent case in tho North Island probation had been extended to a civil servant who had been gnilty of systematic thlfts from the Government, and counsel asked for a similar act of clemency. “It is true that the prisoner is an old man and in a bad state of health, but I regret to say that neither in the actual offences nor in his business system is there anything to urge in mitigation,” said Mr A. T. Donnelly, the Crown .Prosecutor. Prisoner’s, bankrupt estate would probably realise from 6s to 7s in the £. According to tho statement of the Official Assignee tho total defalcations amounted to £22,000, and a large number of the people affected were in poor circumstances and were old men or women. The difficulties faced by the accused were not so much due to his optimism, but to his persistently dishonest temperament. Prisoner’s books were kept in such a way as not to disclose his true position, and a large number of persons had been ruined by Hopkins. Mr .‘Johnston pointed out that several persons concerned were hard-headed ’business men. Mr Donnelly replied that there were several such instances, but hie remarks were intended to be general. The defalcations extended, so far as was known, over the past ten years. His Honour said it was a painful case, hut the circumstances brought forward by Hie defence did not in any way .mitigate the seriousness of the crime. Approximately £20,000 had been taken from persons who could ill afford loss. His Honour added that be was not going to take into consideration the question of the prisoner’s health; that was a matter for the Prisons Board. What he had to deal with was the question of a man business, apparently of good reputation, who, by this reputation, had been able to obtain money from persons unable to bear the losses. The prisoner was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with hard labour, on each charge, the eentences to be concurrent.