SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19977, 20 December 1926, Page 19

SUPREME COURT.

PRISONERS SENTENCED. His Honor Mr Justice Sim occupied the bench at the Supreme Court on Saturday, aivi had brought before him Thomas O'Connor and David Maurice Morgan, two prisoners who had pleaded guilty to forging and uttering, and carna! knowledge, re 6pectively. FORGING AND OTTERING. Speaking on behalf of Thomas O'Connor, Mr White said that prisoner was 28 years of ago, a married man, with young child ren. Counsel did not propose to attempt to say very much in extenuation of the offence. Prisoner had been out of work for some time. He had been drinking heavily, and that was one cause of the trouble There was an allegation that ho' had failed to maintain his family, but that was open to explanation. Mrs O'Connor had taken proceedings against him. He had been living with his wife until two months ago, when he had been transferred to Arrowtow 1, and his wife had come b ack to Dunedin. When they had parted his wife had left him with £7. He worked on at Arrowtown, but tried to get other work He wrote to his wife, but his letters went astrav, and his wife took proceedings against him. These proceedings had been subsequently withdrawn. At present his wife was in a precarious position. She had been living with her sister, who was away, and she would have no place to live in. Counsel pointed out that this was the reason for prisoner to be given an opportunity of making some money. There were two previous convictions against prisoner, but they were two years old, and he (counsel) thought they were for petty theft Prisoner's wife was most anxious to get him back for her own sake, and for the sake of the children. Under these circumstances, counsel asked that leniency bo extended to prisoner. _,-,., . The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F B. Adams) said the offence was not an isolated one. Prisoner had also committed an offence in Wain's Hote! for which no charge had | been laid • *•/• i • His Honor said he might be justified in giving prisoner a chnnep by releasing him on probation, but this, «-a? not an isolated ca>-e He llioiHr'il rir.t •!:.• Im-si Miing 'io rculd r'o wn< I" rrw.cr to ho detained for reformative treatment for thn?o> years. CARNAL KNOWLEDGE. A young man named David Maurice Morgan was brought up for sentence on a charge of having had improper relations with a girl under the ago of 16 years. Mr A. G. Neill, who appeared for prisoner, said that the girl had not been 15 years of age, and prisoner only 21 year 3 and three months. If ho had been three months younger he would have had a defence under the legislation of 1922. The gir! had herself admitted that she looked , over 16 years of age. The girl had been I under the authorities for two or three years, and was evidently precocious, or she would not have acted as she had. Counsel asked that prisoner be dealt with as leniently as possible. Mr F. G. dimming handed in hi= " pore as probation officer, and said prisoner had been a most unsatisfactory probationer, and it was impossible for him to say anything uf all in his favour The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Adams) i stated that the filo seemed to show that I the girl was a danger to any man without. I the strictest principles. She had led this ! young man astray as to her age. lie had been warned not to interfere with her when she came to the pltce. His Honor pointed out tli.it prisoner had already been on probation, and had served a sentence of imprisonment. The probation officer's report was very unfavourable. He thought it was a case for reformative treatment, and prisoner would he detained for four years' reformative purposes.