BURGLARY AND ASSAULT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21365, 19 June 1931, Page 7

BURGLARY AND ASSAULT

CHARGES AGAINST WILSON i “BRUTAL AND CALLOUS CRIMINAL” IMPRISONMENT WITH HARD LABOUR SAUNDERS ORDERED REFORMATIVE DETENTION

The final stage was reached in the Supreme Court yesterday in the hearing of charges relating to a series of crimes which have attracted unusual public interest when Thomas William Wilson and Rupert Saunders appeared for sentence before Mr Justice Kennedy. Wilson faced four charges of breaking and entering and theft with respect to the premises of the Hudson Fur Company, R. S'. Black and Son, Dawson and Co., jewellers, and W. J. Paterson, jeweller. In addition, there were charges of assaulting Walter Gabriel Rossiter with intent to rob him and assaulting Mrs Rossiter with intent to do actual bodily harm. Saunders was charged with assaulting Rossiter with intent to rob him. The effect of the sentences is that Wilson will be imprisoned for five years with hard labour and will be detained for a further year for reformative purposes, and Saunders will be detained for three years for reformative purposes. Mr H. Baron appeared for Wilson and Mr C. J. L. Wihte for Saunders. STATEMENT BY WILSON.

Mr Barron said that a statement had just been handed to him by Wilson, Lut counsel had not had time to read it. Wilson asked that it should be handed to the judge. . His Honor intimated that the court would wait while Mr Barron read the letter. , . ■ Mr Barron, after reading the letter, said that it seemed to be a history of Wilson’s life. Counsel did not know whether it was the proper course to hand it to the court. , , . His Honor: You had better embody in your remarks such matters from the letter as you think fit. Mr Barron first drew the courts attention to the fact that Wilson had made a voluntary statement to the police at the time of his arrest. Counsel had very grave doubts whether, if the statement had not been made, the prisoner could have been satisfactorily identified as the man who had committed the crimes. It would, of course, be puerile for counsel to suggest that in making the statement Wilson had had any idea of assisting the ends of justice. Nevertheless, it had proved to be an important link in the chain of evidence. Mr Rossiter, who had given his evidence in an exceedingly fair manner, had admitted that he could not identify Wilson as his assailant. The only person who had pretended to be able to identify him had been a taxi driver who had seen a man on a verandah 30 feet away on a dark night aided only by the street lights. When asked in the lower court whether he could identify the man the taxi driver had unhesitatingly identified the wrong man. For the positiveness of his assertion and the inaccuracy of his statement he had been admonished by the magistrate. The cap found on Eossiter’s premises could not have been proved to belong to Wilson, and the fact that he had been seen in Dowling street about an hour before the crime had been committed did not associate him with the crime. Wilsoij had exonerated Saunders from Mam as far as the assault on Mrs Rossiter was concerned. The prisoner, by pleading guilty, had saved the country a considerable sum of money and a possible misdMl from Wilson’s letter which was as follows. «When I was-12 years of age I-met with a terrible accident which caused me the lose of the sight of my right ej c- 1 also had a broken leg and was unconscions for five days. .1 was. hit by a speeding car and was in hospital for 18 months. On my recovery I home and was sent to work. My father and my mother were always fighting about me. I was a stepson, and my stepmother made me leave the house. My boyhood days were always unhappy. My stepmother had two sons of her own, and, as my father was in a small bun ness, she was thinking of her own children. While working I got in with a racing crowd of larrikins, and because of themf in July, 1923, I was sent to a reformatory to be detained during the governor’s pleasure for receiving. I was there educated to become a thief. I learnt there and was told by the old bands a shout crime. I was released in July, and my father obtained for me s P OB /, l ’®? on the Port Philip stevedoring wharf. There I worked and earned good wages, I married and in April, 1926, I lost■ my position through the big waterside strike. 1 got mixed up with some crooks and received three years’ hard labour. I was released on parole, but only stayed out five months when I was returned or being on a racecourse and being with reputed cheats. The reformatory authorities took me over, and I was at the French Island settlement for some time. On November 3 last I was freed on parole again. I tried to get work on the wharf but failed, and was warned to get work or leave Melbourne. I •went to my wife and told her I would have to go away. I got some money and took a passage to New Zeahind under the name of Henry W ilhams. X used the alias as I knew that the Prison Board would have prevented my ieaving. I wanted to get a fresh start to make a home for my wife and young baby. I loved them both, and I wanted to make good. I tried hard to get any kind of wdrk. I was paying my unemployment lew, but I could not get work as I had to be in the country for slx ,. m J° nth . s - i walked about getting more disheartened every day. Finally I met a crook I knew. He put a crime to me, and I, like a fool, fell into it. Dawson’s was robbed and I was left without anything. I never got a penny out of it. I then started out in earnest, and did crime op my own. i cot a few pounds which I sent to my wile. I tried to get money by gambling, but failed there also. Worst of all I had begun to drink and take drugs If the police had not arrested me I would be dead, as, when I realised the frightful mess I was in, I was thinking of suicide. On the night of my arrest I tried to cut the artery in my left arm. I thank Cod I got that idea out of my head. On the day of the Rossiter case I was drinking and had been taking phenacetin. I had lung trouble a fortnight previously. I was tumb.ed over by a car You will see that I was not really mvself. I know this is; no excuse for crime, but surely, sir, in view of the other cases, you will see that this was a foolish attempt at crime. Only a lunatic would attempt to do what happened that night. There was no premeditation, it was a mad impulse, and I was also the means of getting another man. Saunders, into trouble. Saunders was very drunk, and I was in a muddled condition. I am very sorrv to have hurt these two elderly people. 1 hope they will soon get well again. I have pleaded guilty to every charge to save the time and money of the Crown. I have admitted all that I ha\ e done. I have (riven the police every assistance. I told them where to recover the proceeds of the two fur robberies. I told them about my accomplices in the Dawson jewellery robbery. I have done *ll I could to make restitution. I ask your Honor to make all my sentences concurrent and to recommend that I should he deported back to Australia. _ I ha\’ e told your Honor the truth in this statement, and I hope you will be clement witu me for the sake of my wife and child. CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS. “ The series of charges upon which Wilson has been committed on his ?wn plea of guilty is one of the most serious that has been before the court for a very long time in this district.” said the Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams). The value of the jewellery stolen from Messrs Dawson and Co. was £3OOO, not one penny of which had been recovered. Tbe accused valued it at £2OOO, so that there was no question as to the seriousness of the amount involved. While Mr Baron claimed that the prisoner had done something to assist the police, and there was

undoubtedly some measure of truth in what he had said, the fact remained that the jewellery had not been recovered. The statement, however, did not contain as much as the prisoner could say if he were anxious to right the wrong that he had done. The value of the jewellery stolen from Mr W. J. Paterson’s was £B4l 15s. The prisoner’s own valuation had been nearly the same as that of the police. With regard to this case there was no suggestion that anyone but Wilson bad been concerned in the robbery. He had got away with upwards of £BOO worth of jewellery, not one penny of which had been recovered. He had told the police of the. dumps where the furs had been hidden, but he stood before the court as the person who had robbed Paterson’s of £BOO worth of jewellery. He was the only person who had handled it, and it had not been revealed. The prisoner said that this had disappeared, and that there was no hope of its ever being recovered. He might mean to keep it until he was released, and he might have handed it to receivers. If he had passed it on he had completely failed to give the police any such assistance as might lead to the tracing of the jewellery. He stood before the court not as a repentant thief, but as one who, in the face of hie Honor, intended to retain the proceeds of these thefts. With respect to the robbery of Messrs Dawson and Co.’s premises, it would be observed that Wilson claimed in his statement that two other men had been engaged. It was certain that he himself was the man who had entered tne shop and calmly, and in broad daylight, and in view of passers-by in the main street, removed tray after tray of jewellery from the window. Similar boldness had not been shown in the commission of any other crime in the Crown Prosecutor’s experience. The prisoner had placed himself in the position of one who had stood in the street. In reality, the police said that he had been the principal. As to the jewellery, it was gone. The prospects of its recovery were remote. With respect to the Hudson Fur Company, the value of the furs taken was £SOO. The whole of the furs stolen had now been recovered. With respect to the robbery of Messrs R. S. Black and Son’s premises, the value of the furs stolen had been £450, of which £428 worth had been recovered. This gave a total value of goods stolen of £4791 15s. of which £928 only had been recovered. In addition, in the attempted robbery of Mr Kossiter’s shop, the prisoner had got hie hands on jewellery valued at £9OO. It was true that he had not been able to get away with it, but it brought the value of the goods which he bad stolen and attempted to steal up to £5691, and that within a period running only from January 24 to May 11. In respect of the mere amounts involved the case was practically unique in recent records in .Dunedin. With respect to the Rossiter case, Rossiter was 73 years of age, and hie wife 65, so that the assaults on them had been cowardly in the extreme. It was necessary to draw attention to the fact that earlier in the evening the two men had been seen by a constable together. From the point where they had been standing they had been looking straight down upon the roof and rear or the largest jewellery establishment in the city—Messrs Stewart Dawson, Ltd. It seemed perfectly certain that it had been their intention then to make an attempt on the place. They had been spoken to by the policeman, and had had the impudence to question his authority, but he had produced his badge and they had moved ou. Mrs Rossiter’s condition was serious, and she had no recollection of the affair even now. It seemed probable that she would suffer permanent injury -in consequence of what had occurred. The assaults had been characterised by brutal ferocity. After the assault on Mr Rossiter Wilson had tried to render him bereft of the power of speech by thrusting his fingers into his victim’s throat so as to injure it and twisting tbem round like a corkscrew. With respect to the suggestion that Wilson bad been under the influence of drink Mr Adams suggested that th« affair bad been carried out with promptness and decision ouite inconsistent with that explanation. When people had ar rived at the door Wilson had run for safety. Grabbing a tray of rings he had run past Mrs Rossiter and dashed up the stairs. The bulk of the jewellery had been found in the bathroom. In his escape, at a height of 18 feet from the ground, the prisoner had been able to pass across from one window to another, a distance of 7 feet. This would be an extraordinary feat in the dark of the night even if a man were perfectly sober. It was futile to suggest that Wilson bad been in any way under the influence of liquor, A great deal had been due to Mr Vennell for bis promptness in making an entry and bailing up Saunders. It seemed that Saunders had played a subsidiary part in the whole affair So far as the police knew he linn not been associated with Wilson in the early thefts, but only a few days before this offence. Wilson bad been the leader. His reference to his wife and child hai been entirely out of place, ns be had bad £lO in cash when arrested. He had had no reason to steal for the purpose of living. He had already committed four burglaries. It might be assumed that he had had difficulty in getting rid of the proceeds, but why should he attempt to steal jewellery again? Mr Adams submitted that Wilson had been carrying on a series of deliberate thefts _ not in order to live, but with a desire for plunder. He was a professional burglar of a very dangerous type. Since coming to New Zealand be bad been twice back to Australia each time apparently stowing awav. One might guess at his purpose. No doubt he had an associate on the other side, and it might be that the proceeds of the robberies bad gone_ there. One case against him in Australia bad related to an unregistered pistol, which was significant in a case of this type. WILSON SENTENCED. "I am forced by the nature of your crimes, by the determination which you have evinced in their execution, and by your attack upon an old man of 73 and his wife, to regard you as a callous, brutal, and dangerous criminal.” said his Honor in sentencing Wilson. His Honor had no doubt that there had not been before the court in Dunedin for the last 25 years graver crimes of the type of those upon which Wilson now appeared for sentence. Men such as Wilson who had committed crime abroad must learn from Jibe sentences which his Honor was bound to impose that they might not hope, when they became marked in their own country, to come across to these shores and commit with impunity crimes of plunder and violence. Within the six months during which Wilson had been in New Zealand he had stolen goods valued at £4791, and had lys last attempt at robbery not proved his undoing his Honor had little doubt that Wilson would have greatly increased those figures Whether he had acted alone or with associates it was clear that crime had been his one and only occupation and that he had had some experience and was a very proficient criminal. The value of jewellery which he had stolen and which had not been recovered was £3BOO The policy of the law had always been to encourage thieves to make restitution, and it was also the policy of the law to discourage thieves from retaining the proceeds of their crimes. His Honor would bear in mind that the prisoner had given some help as far as the furs were coo cerned, but he would also remember that he had given no real help towards the recovery of the stolen jewellery, and that it was most likely a fact that he had already enjoyed his share of the proceeds of the stolen jewellery or hoped in the future, when released from prison, that he would enjoy what he had dishonestly obtained. Fortunately attacks such as those which Wilson had made upon Mr Rossiter and his wife were uncommon in New Zealand. The prisoner must, when he had forced his way into Mr Rossiter’s shop, have deliberately contemplated that, in carrying out his nefarious design, force would have to be used upon Mr Rossiter or any members of his family who might come to his aid. The assault upon Mr Rossiter had been cruel and brutal, and the prisoner must have flung himself upon Mrs Rossiter also in a ferocious manner. Such a crime, in bis Honor’s opinion, called for exemplary punishment. The sentence of the court would be that iu respect to the thefts from the Hudson Fur Company, K. S. Black and Son. Dawson and Co., and W. J. Paterson, imprisonment with hard labour for four years in each case. I'or assaulting Rossiter with intent to him he would he sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labour. With respect to the assault on Mrs Rossiter, the prisoner would be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for five years, and his Honor would direct that, at the expiration of that time the prisoner be detained for reformative purposes for a period of one year. The sentences would be concurrent.

CHARGE AGAINST SAUNDERS. Mr White, on behalf of Saunders, stated that he was a single man, 36 years of age. He was an Englishman by birth,having been born in Birmingham, where hie parents bad resided for a number of years. His father had been a soldier in the Permanent Force, holding the rank of sergeant-major, and had had considerable Indian service. The accused himself appeared to have had a most creditable record, and although some of the evidence relating to it had been lost, still there was sufficient evidence with his effects in the Police Station to verify most of his statements. He had had a primary school education in England, and upon leaving that school he had become a message boy. In 1911, when 17 years of age, he had joined the navy, and had spent the ensuing nine years of his life, including the whole of the war period, in that service. He had served during the war in H.M.S. New Zealand as an able seaman, and then as a gunlayer. He stated that he had been in the three big naval engagements of Heligoland, Jutland, and Dogger Bank. At the conclusion of the war he had remained with the navy for a further two years. In 1920, however, .owing to the policy adopted by the Government of armament limitation his services had been temporarily dispensed with. He had been given an opportunity ot going into the reserves, in which' case he would have obtained re-employ-ment with the navy when a vacancy occurred, but he had decided to leave and seek his fortunes in a new land. He had had an uncle in Canada, and had decided to migrate to that country. Whilst in Toronto he had secured employment as an instructor to the Canadian Navy League. At that time this body had owned a training schooner cuileu me Pinter for training Navy League boys on the great lakes of North America. He had held this appointment as instructor for four years, and there was certainly evidence amongst his effects corroborating this statement. In 1924, however, the training system had been discontinued, and the accused had come to New Zealand on a Canadian steamer as an able seaman. He had arranged with the captain that, provided he could obtain a substitute for himself, he could be discharged in New Zealand. This had been done, and he had since made Dunedin his home town. For a few months he had been engaged as a fireman in the Dunedin Fire Brigade. This appointment and his Canadiaulfrappointmeut, counsel ventured to suggest, proved conclusively that his character must have been of the very highest. He had served on some eight oi nine vessels trading on the New Zealand coasts since his arrival in this country, and his discharges were with his effects in the Police Station, his conduct being marked very good in each case. His last steamer had been the s.s, Waihemo, and he had been discharged from this steamer on April 21- last at Auckland, where the boat, had been temporarily laid up. He had been entitled to a free pass to Dunedin, the place where he signed on, and he had decided to spend a holiday there, the boatswain undertaking to let him know when he would be required to rejoin the ship. He had come to Dunedin with £35 iu his possession, and it seemed quite apparent had determined to spend one glorious holiday on a continued drinking bout. He had arrived in Dunedin 14 days before the date of Ids arrest, and seemed to have made good use of his time so far as getting rid of his money was concerned, as he had had only £5 in his possession when he had been arrested. His boat had since been recommissioned, but he had been in gaol at the time, and, of course, could not join. . . . , , Counsel submitted that this had been only the temporary lapse of a drunkard. Counsel was satisfied that if Saiindeis had not made the acquaintance of Wilson he would not be in the dock. His meeting with Wilson had been a casual one, and he had been more of a fool than a criminal. Counsel submitted that the crime had not been premeditated. When the men had reached Rossiter s shop he had followed Wilson in. His only real part in the affair had been the original pushing of Rossiter to the floor and lying down beside him. There had been no previous association with vVilson, wlio probably had thought that Saunders s weight would be useful. Rossiter had said that Saunders bad made no attempt to rough-handle him. Saunders had made no attempt to take anything. He had merely lain down on the floor for 10 or 15 minutes, and simply put his han.l across Rossiter’s face, not even stopping him from crying out. His Honor: lie stopped Rossiter from getting up, I presume, and attempted to stop him from crying out. That is very much different from merely lying down at the man’s side. Mr White said that no pressure at all had been used. If Saunders had intended to silence Rossiter he could easily have done so quickly. He must have heard the alarm from Mrs Rossiter and the breaking of the window and must, therefore, have had every chance to make his escape. These facta must indicate that he had taken a muddled and insignificant part in the affair. The worst feature of the crime had been its extreme brutality, but it could not be suggested that there had been brutality on the part of Saunders. He had certainly aided and abetted to some extent, but. in view of the prisoner s past record, counsel asked that he should be dealt with as leniently as possible. Mr Adams said that it was a matter for regret that stress should have been laid on the fact that the prisoner had been for some years in the navy and had been present at great engagements. A man who was prepared to assist in a two-to-ono attack against an old man of 73 was guilty of rank cowardice and brutality which was not in accord with naval traditions. It only showed that he had the opportunity of knowing better and to behave not as one who fell casually. Mr Adams submitted that the court could entirely discount any suggestion that' the prisoner had been looking down on Stewart Dawson’s with innocent intentions. There was very little ground for suggesting that the prisoner had been drunk or at least seriously drunk. The constable had seen no signs of liquor upon the men as they had gone down the Dowling street steps. It was true that the prisoner had taken a smaller part in the affair than Wilson, but, nevertheless, it had been serious enough. He had tried to make out when arrested that he had been pushed in by the crowd and had stated that he had no mate. Hia actions had hardly indicated that he was suffering from overmuch drink. He had not given any assistance in tracing Wilson. One would have expected as a sign of repentance a willingness to place the facts before the police. What Saunders had done had shown sufficient determination to make his offence very serious indeed. He had held the old man and had therefore enabled the other map to injure Mrs Rossiter. He had been a party to a brutal assault on an old man, and had known that a woman was being involved. A VERY GRAVE CHARGE.

His Honor said that Saunders had pleaded guilty to a very grave charge.. His previous record had been an honourable one, and one would have expected that far from being an associate in the commission of an offence, he would have gone to the relief of those assaulted. It was true that he had not shown in his treatment of Rossiter the violence which had characterised the actions of Wilson. Saunders had. however, restrained Rossiter so that his associate could proceed with the robbery. His Honor could not think that the idea of the crime had had its origin in Saunders’s mind, but rather did he think that Saunders had been in a condition following drunken bouts that he had been the more predisposed to the influence of another. His Honor thought, therefore, that having regard to the prisoner’s record he should be treated in an entirely different way from Wilson. The sentence of the court was that he be detained for reformative purposes for a period of three years.