SUPREME COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21828, 15 December 1932, Page 18

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SITTING Wednesday, December 14. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy.) THEFT FROM HOTEL. Alfred Edward Taylor was called on for sentence, having pleaded guilty in the lower court to two charges of breaking and entering and theft from an hotel at Omakau. Mr F. M. Hanan, who appeared for the accused, asked his Honor to view the offences as the actions of a man with an unfortunate craving for liquor rather than as the actions of a man with criminal intentions. A sum of money was exposed in the hotel at the time, and the theft of liquor by the prisoner seemed to show that liquor was his object rather than money or property. According to the report of the .probation officer the accused was a hardworking, industrious man, a skilled tradesman, and at present in employment. His wife and children were dependent upon him, and, if he were sent to gaol they would most likely become a charge on the State. Owing to the expense of transport between Omakau and Dunedin, he had not been able to arrange for the attendance of witnesses who could testify as to the previous good character of the prisoner, but he had a number of letters which in the circumstances his Honor might like to see. His Honor said the difficulty was that the man had been convicted, and he was released to come up for sentence if called upon. He was also the subject of a prohibition order. Mr Hanan said that, although the accused had been ordered to come up for sentence within nine months, he had kept away from liquor during that period and his conduct had been proper. The period of nine months had expired at the time of the present offences. The accused’s resistance to alcohol temptation and his good conduct showed his ability to control his craving for liquor. If he were given similar treatment on this occasion the result would probably be successful. A week in custody had already been experienced by the accused in awaiting sentence, and this had had a deterrent effect upon him. Counsel suggested that imprisonment might destroy the man’s self-respect, which he felt sure might be the force which would give him power to combat the craving for liquor. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said the police report showed that the crimes were closely allied to the habitual use of alcohol. When the man was arrested he had the appearance of one who had been over-indulg-ing, and there was also the evidence of the mechanical nature of the crimes; which were repeated on three successive nights. On two nights he succeeded in getting through the window, and on the third he was caught in the act. His Honor said that the offences for which the accused was committed for sentence were carried out at night. Accused had previously been before the court, and after conviction he was ordered to come up for sentence within nine months. According to the probation officer’s report there was also a prohibition order against him. If he thought it would serve a useful purpose to admit accused to probation then he would do it, but he was abundantly satisfied upon the reports that it would be useless, and the interests of the accused as -well as the interests of the State would best be served by imposing a sentence of reformative detention. The sentence of the court was that accused be detained for reformative purposes for a period of nine months on each charge, the two sentences to be concurrent.”

IN DIVORCE TAYLOR v, TAYLOR. Motion for decree absolute. Mr R. S. Frapwell appeared for the petitioner, Agnes Ellen Taylor; Mr B. S. Irwin for the respondent, Wilfred Frank Taylor. Mr Frapwell asked for a decree absolute in terms of a draft order submitted, dealing with the custody of the child, which was with the respondent. Mr Irwin concurred. He said the child had always, been with the father, and there was no 'objection to reasonable access being granted to the mother. His Honor granted a decree absolute in an order which provided for reasonable opportunity for the mother to see the child.