CRIMINALS PUNISHED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11250, 30 June 1922, Page 4

CRIMINALS PUNISHED

AT THE SUPREME COURT MANY CHARGES OF BREAKING AND ENTERING. HIS HONOUR’S COMMENTS. In tho Supreme Court, yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), the following prisoners, having pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court, were brought up for sentence : THEFT FROM A DWELLING. John Graham, convicted of theft from a dwelling at Palmerston North, handed in a long written statement in his own defence, in which he set forth the circumstances which had ooui tributed to bis downfall. His Honour 6aid the offence the accused was charged with wa6 not a serious one; and, as this had been his first conviction, His Honour was inclined to grant probation. Prisoner’s fall was, said His Honour, undoubtedly due to drink, and consequently to some flaw in the existing social eystem. Prisoner was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Edward Jack Cromer, convicted ot breaking and entering at Auckland, and on three charges of the same at Wellington, was sentenced to six months* imprisonment with hard labour. Mr J. S. Hanna, who appeared for the accused, said the latter had been found guilty of having a revolver in his possession, and was now serving a sentence for that offence. His Honour said he had received a letter from the lady in Auckland whose house had been entered, asking that prisoner be let go unpunished, as she thought his offence was due merely to a fludden impulse. Counsel submitted that the prisoner was a young man of education and ability, by profession a marine officer; and, being unable to secure employment in that capacity, he had shipped as a common seaman. Having lost his wallet and £3O in Auckland, he tried Wellington for employment, but could obtain none. Rather than beg or admit poverty, he was foolish enough to steal. His Honour said he could not possibly extend probation to a man guilty not only of stealing but also of selling the stolen goods. ON TWENTY-SIX CHARGES, Alexander Gemmell, charged with nc* less than twenty-six offences of breaking and entering and theft, was sentenced to three years’ reformative detention at the Borstal Institution, Invercargill. Mr J. A. Scott, for the prisoner, submitted that the accused was rather more of a fool than a rogue, for he was only 21 years of age, and, previous to the criminal outbreak now specified, there had never been anything against him. His Honour: Is there anything wrong with the man? He seems to be one of the biggest fools I have ever seen in the dock. Counsel then submitted that all prisoner’s thefts had been petty ones of a shilling and upwards; that he had since given information of several of them voluntarily, and that be had never carried a revolver or attempted to resist arrest. His Honour: Yes; but he was folly equipped for burglary. He carried iron chisels, a screwdriver, a mask, and other things that form the equipment of an up-to-date burglar. Counsel: But, if Your Honour pleases, he must be given credit for carrying no firearms. His Honour: In other words, a big fool, hut might have bees a bigger one. I cannot grant probation. These offences seem .to have extended over a period of two and a half months. His Honour, in sentencing the prisoner, said that no man hut an ass would have acted as he had done; and His Honour was inclined to the opinion that his offences showed mental deficiency rather than criminality. THEFT FROM A VESSEL. Richard Charles Hill, charged with theft from a vessel, was given six months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Mr A. B. Sievwright, for the prisoner, submitted that prisoner’® only previous conviction was for theft of a coat six years ago; but it had beer proved that be was then under the influence of liquor. Drink was responsible also for his present appearance. His Honour: Then he has no business to take drink if drink makes him steal. His Honour said he would deal leniently with prisoner, but the goods stolen had not since been recovered, and the offence of stealing from vessels was becoming only too common in this country. If he should ever come before the court again his next sentence would he a long term of imprisonment. FALSE PRETENCES. Albert Charles Thomas Lamb wa& sentenced to two years* reformative detention, cumulative upon the expiration of his present term. Several previous convictions having been proved against the prisoner, His Honour said the accused seemed to be utterly unscrupulous as to how he got goods, so long as ho got them. During the period from August 13th to March 13th last, his valueless cheques had amounted to over £340. INDECENT ASSAULT. Convicted of an indecent assault, Aiw thur Gordon Kale was brought up for sentence: Vvt, owing to some technical informality in the statement from tho lower court. His Honour said he could not deal »vuh the case. The plea of guilty, he said, had apparently been included in the middle of the information instead of l>oing stated on the hack. Mr P. W. Jackson appeared for the prisoner, who was then ordered to be released, and was re-arreeted, 94 that the cose could come up before tb« court in proper form.