PROBATION REFUSED

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12470, 11 June 1926, Page 4

PROBATION REFUSED

“BORROWING” FROM EMPLOYERS REFORMATIVE DETENTION IMPOSED HIS HONOUR’S COMMENTS At the Supreme Court yesterday probation in two cases of theft as a servant was refused by His Honour the Chief Justice. George Thoms pleaded guilty to two charges of theft as a servant. Mr P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted,

Mr G. G. Watson, who appeared on behalf of the prisoner, said that the total thefts amounted to £IOO. Thoms had been 23 years in the service of the Post and Telegraph Department. Starting as a mere lad, he worked up until he became postmaster. Throughout the period of his service the departmental reports were consistently good, until this lapse. As postmaster av Urenui, in the Taranaki district, he gave satisfaction, and it seemed difficult to account for his dereliction of duty. AJbont six months ago Thoms had given way to drink, and the nature of the attempts showed that his mind was not normal. Full restitution of the amount had been made.

“1 am aware it is the general custom of judges to refuse probation in cases of the theft of publio moneys,” continued Mr Watson, “but I will point out that it became general before the present very great extension of the Probation Act. Probation can now be granted not only to first offenders, hut to those previously convicted'. In this case it cannot be said that suspicion might rest upon anyone else. The dominant element in tho modern system is the reformative aspect. As far as that is concerned, this man, with a wife and young child, has every incentive to regain the standard established by his hitherto unblemished Jeoord,”

ABUSED HIS TRUST His Honour, addressing the prisoner, said: “You have pleaded guilty to a charge which involves theft of moneys belonging to the Post Office. The embezzlements were commenced while you were a servant of the Crown. You were placed in a position of trust, and the thefts were committed at a time when confidence must necessarily have been reposed in you. These peculations by servants of moneys, both public and private, are far too common in New Zealand, and the form of punishment inflicted seems to be no deterrent. Tolerance of this class of offence must be detrimental to the public interest, and creates an atmosphere not conducive to public morality or the publio weal. I cannot see my way to grant you probation. There are many circumstances in your case which would naturally incline me to grant probation, but I feel I would be lacking in my duty to you and to the public if I acceded to the request on your behalf.” Referring to Thoms’s good record, His Honour said he could not take the matter of drink as an extenuation, but he would treat him with leniency, and imposed a sentence of twelve mouths’ reformative detention. ANOTHER OFFICIAL’S LAPSE COUNTY FUNDS MISSING. Robert Stanley Hanna also pleaded guilty of theft as a servant. Mr Watson, on his behalf, said that the facts, as regarded a .good record, were somewhat similar to those in the previous case. Hanna pleaded guilty to the theft of moneys belonging to the Masterton County Council while in its employ. Over £3OO was involved. Hanna was married, with two young children. Until the present time he had borne an unblemished record, serving successively in the Piako and Waihi County Councils until he was away on active service, where he held a good record. His accounts were in good order, and he had been an active member of his community, prominent in its social activities. Apparently he had had no failings which might have conduced to the theft, but the reasons for tho defalcations were the pressing need of a younger brother in financial difficulties, for whom he had borrowed

a certain amount on his own house on mortgage, and “borrowed” more from i his employers, and also the pressing for some old debts by Waihi creditors. His county accounts had not been audited for two years, but Hanna had given every assistance to the police. Counsel, in view of His Honour’s statement, said he could not ask for probation, but could only put forward the prisoner’s good record as a citizen. His Honour said that while there were a great many circumstances connected with the prisoner’s character and past which would incline- him to give probation, he felt, it impossible. The duty of; a judge was to make a. punishment deterrent to others. Reports showed the to have/ an excellent character, and to have rendered good services. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the peculations took place over a period of two years, during which Hanna was in receipt of a good salary, £550 a year, and while it was painful to him to have to pass sentence on a roan of such good character, the prisoner would be committed to prison, and then detained for reformative purposes for a period of eighteen months.