RETRIBUTION

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12354, 26 January 1926, Page 8

RETRIBUTION

PRISONERS SENTENCED UPJOHN GETS TWO YEARS > CASES BEFORE SUPREME COURT In the Supremo Court yesterday prisoners were sentenced by Mr Justice Reed. Mr P. S. Macassey, public prosecutor, appeared for the Crown. Herbert William Upjohn, who pleaded guilty to four charges of false pretences, was described as a journalist. Mr J. F. B. Stevenson, who appeared for him, sold that an early operation had had some effect on the prisoner, whose success in journalism and possession of a good singing voice had unbalanced him, and had him to go to Australia at the ago of 17, in pursuit of a literary career.. The offences were of a nature that showed no preparation, and the total amount involved was JJ2S. He came of a family, who would. make good the loss. Removed from tho city and placed on a farm, as could be arranged, Upjohn might retrieve himself. He was now only 20. He asked for probation. His Honour said that whether early success had unbalanced the prisoner or not, -he had evidently never been disciplined. He would be sent to a Borstal institute for two years. FORGERY AND UTTERING Herbert Vivian Walkington Buttrey, aged 10, who had pleaded guilty to six charges of forgery, and six charges of utterifig, was admitted to probation, His Honour, remarking that he never seemed have had a chance, and had committed tho offences from necessity. Mr Macassey said that most of the money had been spent in the payment of past debts. Probation was granted for four years on the special terms that he pay £6 to the court in payment of the expenses of the case. His Honour commented upon the cashing of cheques of from £7 to JJIO to such boj, and thought the tradesmen, do-

served very little consideration. There was no order tor restitution. Vernon Lionel dark, for whom Mr w. Perry appeared, had pleaded guilty to forgery and uttering. Counsel said that the offences had been committed after drinking parties, amongst the resulting purchases being a gramophone and a ukulele, though hei had a gramophone, and did not play the ukulele. The prisoner was teing treated for appendicitis at the. time, and was mentally unbalanced by liquor. He was a good worker, and his employer, woo could not understand tho lapse, was wil - ing to take him tack. Clark was admitted to probation for throe years on condition 'ho abstain from alcoholic yearly. take out a prohibition order against himself, .make restitution, and pay tho costs of the proceedings. • . GIVEN A CHANCE James Daniel Markham pleaded guilty to breaking and entering and theft, and attempted breaking, entering, and theft, and Arthur Douglas pleaded guilty to bieaking, entering, and theft, and. also to obscene language and threatening bohaviour. Mr C. A. L. Treadwell appeared for both of the prisoners, and urged the fact that both came of good parent. ; Markham was tho sole support of ‘his mother and family. Both men had toaked in liquor for a time, and thus had probably originated the mad scheme of the forced entry they had made.. There was no suggestion or criminality. He believed all the stolen goods were recovered Had it not been that the theft had been committed while both wero unde* the influence of drink, said His Honour, ha would have sentenced the prisoners to long terms of imprisonment. It was strange that they could not take their drop of liquor without making beasts of themselves, but he would make it a condition of admission to three years* probation each that they abstain from liquor. They would be ordered to take out a prohibition order each year, and if they broke it they would be recalled and sen-* tenced to long terms.