PRISONERS SENTENCED

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11661, 27 October 1923, Page 5

PRISONERS SENTENCED

AT SUPREME COURT TWO YEARS’ HARD LABOUR FOR SERIOUS OFFENCE. FALSE PRETENCES AND THEFT. A nnmbjr of prisoners appeared for sentence before Mr Justice MacGregor at the Supreme Court yesterday, when he impeded terms of imprisonment for ten offences to which all the offenders had pleaded guilty. His Honour looked seriously upon the crime of false pretences, he said, when sentencing throe prisoners on this charge, and remarked that it would have to he put down. ROBBED THEIR EMPLOYER CRIME AND A HOLIDAY. The first to make their appearance before His Honour were a' trio of middle-aged, 'men, who had pleaded guilty to chargee of false pretences ana forgery. Their names were Charles Robert Hicks, Roland Johu Hanger, and Frank Wesley. The offences had all been committed at Napier. On behalf of the prisoners, Mr P. H. Putnam made an appeal for leniency, though he admitted that all three had been before the court on former occasions on minor charges. But this had taken place, he said, a good many years before. While in an intoxicated condition, having “indulged” during a holiday, these men bad defrauded their employer. The total defalcations were £36, and counsel emphasised the fact that they were quite prepared to repay it. He said that Ranger was a married man with two children, while Wesley was also married, and had three children. There had been no criminal intent, the men were all good workers, and their employer was quite prepared to take them hack. The offences had been committed over a period of three days, with the exception of Ranger, in whose case it had been only two days. The judge listened to the appeal for leniency, but said he could not grant probation. He saw little distinction between the accused- Though on a drinking bout, he deolared they had beea sober enough to defraud sober men, In each ease, he sentenced the delinquent to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, the sentences to to concurrent. “IN URCENT NEED” A MEAN THEFT. Pressing financial difficulties and domestic worry in that connection, were urged b.V His counsel as extenuating facljoTS regoiding John Morgan, 28 years of age, who had pleaded guilty to theft from a dwelling at Palmerston North. Mr J. S Hanna said Morgan was in urgent need when he took £l4. of whioh £5 was sent to his wife, and the balance was used in paying tradesmen’s accounts. He added that lestitution was assured and then referred to the prisoner’s war service, which, it was inferred had “weakened his moral fibre.”

“He was short of money,” urged counsel when appealing for probation, “and was in great necessity.” “I am afraid that probation is not recommended by the probation officer,” remarked His Honour, who characterised Morgan’s theft as a mean one. He had listened to all that had been said in his favour, but derided that it was a case for imprisonment. Morgan was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

EXTREMELY GALLANT FEAT

YOUNG MAN’S LAPSE

The case that followed was somewhat similar, hut the offender was younger. Henry Rovden Moore (Air O. A. L. Treadwell) had also seen war service, and his moral fibre had likewise weakened visibly. Air Treadwell alluded to it as “an extraordinary case.” Moore was charged with forgeiy and uttering at Palmerston North and Wellington, also false pretences. He was 25 years of age, and, said counsel, cauve of very respectable parentage. He hoped that the court would see its way clear to impose a short term of reformative treatment, which Would give the prisoner a chnnce. It was not his intention to plead war service, but declared that Moore had performed an extremely gallant action and had received a reward. But it was not his desire to plead that. Like his predecessor in the dock. Aloore had been in trouble before, and was nearVv within a month of his period of three years' probation, when the present offences were committed. “He is well educated, and industrious to a degree,” said Air Treadwell, “but he has suffered horn nervous troubles, and spasms of depression.. . . He cannot stand any drink.” “It is a pity to see a young man like this in such a position,” was the oomment of His Honour, “but it is useless to try nnd explain away these offences on the ground of excitement ” Though he would take the prisoner’s mire and home surroundings into consideration, he thought he was justified in ordering Aloore to a detained for reformative detention for a period not exceeding two years.

“NOTHING TO SAY!”

SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE FOR SERIOUS OFFENCE.

“Nothing to say!” was the bald statement from a bald-headed man named William Robert Watt, who had pleaded guilty to an indecent assault on a girl under the ag© of 16. “This is a esse for a substantial sentence,” said His Honour, addressing the prisoner, “you will he sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. His Honour added: “It is ..indeed very fortunate that the girl suffered no material injury.” Watt was in the dock hss than three minutes. “OUT OF THE QUESTION” PROBATION REFUSED. “If you grant mi probation T would not break it I hare work roadv to go to. That is all I have to say/’ was th© statement of Alfred Hcmogage Earl Holmes, aged 2(L who had pleaded ptiilty to theft at itlthum. t nfortunately for the prisoner his record was as varied as liis name, and his appeal did not evoke a favourable reply. “The accused haa pleaded guilty to breaking into a house and stealing h Hum of money.” said til© judge, when passing a. term of reformative treatment not to exceed two years. “His .unfortunate record ehcrws that he is

unlikely to benefit from a period of probation. . . I am afraid that piobation is out of the question. . . It is very difficult to know what to do with a young man like this, but I will give him another chance.”

HORSE-STEALING A LAD’S OFFENCE. A diminutive person named Leonard Crawford, who had occasioned hri paronts a good deal of anxiety through his dishonesty, was ordered to be detained for reformative detention for a period not exceeding four year©. His offeree was horse-stealing ati Palmerston North. The prisoner was not represented by counsel, and had nothing to say. “This lad appears to have been very dishonest,” observed Mr Justice MacGregor. “The probation officer doc© not recommend probation. I agree with him.”