Mutilator Sentenced To Seven Years' Gaol

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 675, 29 May 1929, Page 1

Mutilator Sentenced To Seven Years' Gaol

LAW IN OWN HANDS FATHER’S FRENZIED ACT \ Press Association WELLINGTON, Today.. “You and people like you who are diaposed to take the law into your own hands must be taught that it will not be tolerated in a civilised community. It is essential In the public interest that a severe penalty should be passed. The only doubt I have in mind is whether, severe though it will be, it is sufficient to meet the crime. “You will be kept in prison, with herd labour, for seven years. That is the sentence of the Court.”

These were the remarks of the Chief Justice in sentencing William Henry Osgood, who appeared on remand for sentence from Blenheim, having pleaded guilty to a charge that, with intent to do grievous bodily harm, ht did actual bodily harm. Mr. F. E. Ward represented the Crown and Mr. McN'ah, of Blenheim, appeared for the prisoner. Mr. McNab said the prisoner was a married man of 54. He had five children, three sons and two daughters, the youngest being a boy of 16. Until this unfortunate attack he had an unblemished record. He volunteered for service at a time when he was over age, was gassed on two occasions, and was still suffering from the effects of ;as poisoning. Had it not been for the serious nature of the crime, counsel submited that the probation officer would have had no hesitation in re.ommending probation. His Honour remarked that what counsel meant was, if the prisoner had tsed the horsewhip to the right man or even to the wrong man, counsel would have had a good deal more to say. He would have appealed to the Court with more confidence. DREADFUL IDEA Mr. McNab agreed. He submitted it was not the crime of a normal man. His Honour would have gathered from depositions that it was not his intention, when the letter was written to bis victim, that he should have been dealt with in that manner. Prisoner bad instructed counsel that he was not altogether sure what drove him to take the action. He asked the young man to go outside, put up his hands and fight. The boy did not, and, as a result, prisoner, who was a strong man, struck him. He saw him lying senseless at his feet, and it was then the dreadful idea entered his mind, which he unfortunately carried out. Counsel did not put that forward as justification, but as a plea for Aeuiency. Whatever might have been the character of the girl and the attitude of the young man toward her, it was charitable and right to infer that, to the prisoner, his daughter was virtuous, and he was in a terrible stare of mind over the condition in which she now found herself. The evidence of the doctor who was present shortly after the crime showed that prisoner was not normal.

His Honour: The law presumes sau

Mr, McNab: I do not submit that n® >a insane, but I do submit that lie 14 Ilo t normal, although not to the extent to make him insane. His Honour: If a man is not normal and is apt to do things such as this tnan has done, the public must be protected.

Remarking that there was no reason t 0 believe that the prisoner would commit such an offence again, counsel said that, after he was relasec! on bail, Prisoner did not sleep, and felt almost nclined to do away with himself. As n result, he was advised to surrender its bail, and this was done. PRESUMED TO BE SANE In passing sentence. His Honour, addressing prisoner, said that the law Presumed him to be sane, and his counsel did not suggest he could make other assumption. During the time he was in prison, no doubt he would be kept under observation and the case would be treated in such a manner as the circumstances might require. You may have thought—no doubt you hid think—that the young man whom you have injured had commited an outrage against your daughter. 5® has sworn in the Lower Court that he did not. Whether that be cortect or not, I cannot say, but whettur he U the person who did that act or

not, you had —and you knew you had — recourse to law. You could have invoked the assistance of the police and the law and, if the man had been guilty and the evidence had shown it, he would have been dealt with without fear or favour. Instead of that you wrote to him, actually threatening the law. He came to your place. When you got him there you punched him on the jaw, rendering him senseless, took him into your room and there committed this diabolical act. You have ruined this young fellow for life.”