GAOL WITH HARD LABOUR

Taranaki Daily News, 30 April 1931, Page 5

GAOL WITH HARD LABOUR

DRUNK IN CHARGE OF CAR ■ PUNISHMENT OF SECOND OFFENCE • r- . OIL DRILLER FROM UNITED STATES r • •• Concurrent sentences of fourteer days’ hard labour were inflicted or George Lewis Coles at the New Plymouth Court yesterday for a breach oi i his probationary license on April -2i and for being intoxicated while in charge of a car. He was convicted and discharged for obtaining liquor during ths currency of a prohibition order and foi driving-a car without a license. It. was 2.30 a.m. on Saturday when Constable Shirley heard a horn being sounded persistently outside a garage in Devon Street, said Senior Sergeani MoCrorie. The constable went up tc find what it was all about and discovered the man was drunk. On April 18, 1930, Coles had been convicted at New Plymouth for -being drunk in charge of a car, his license was cancelled, he was placed on probation for 12 months and a prohibition order was issued against him. He was employed at ths Omata oil well. A plea of. guilty was entered by Mr. R. H. Quilliam. He recalled that nearly 12 months ago Coles had admitted a similar offence and had given a promise that he would behave well in future After considering the circumstances the magistrate had decided to treat him leniently. He now appreciated only too well that it must appear that that con-fidence-had been misplaced. Counsel said, however, that it was his desire to show the court that that was not the correct . view under the circumstances surrounding the case. Friday night marked the culmination of a very difficult and anxious period of \work at the oil bore. For some time he and his colleagues had been engaged in hard work involving strain. As this had passed he and others felt they could relax and they spent the evening at the house of a friend in the coiuitry. It was not a drinking party, merely a friendly gathering. There was liquor, but Counsel bad been informed by the others present that for practically the whole evening Coles had abstained from drinking.' Unfortunately, late in the evening, not in the presence of his friends, Coles fell to temptation and took a certain amount of liquor, little realising that he was going to make trouble for himself. Sonie time after midnight he was driven home in his friend’s car, which was left outside a boarding-house while they sat by the fire. Then Coles got an idea that he would be assisting his friend if he took the car to the garage and, without saying anything to the others, he 'went outside and drove the car to the garage. He sounded the horn and as the attendant did not appear he sounded it again and on a policeman coming up to investigate Coles was recognised as a man with a prohibition order against him and without a license to drive. It was not suggested he had not driven carefully. Even after being discovered he drove into the garage quite properly. It could only be said he was slightly under the influence of liquor. He had not made a beast of himself. No doubt the small quantity he had taken had affected his judgment sufficiently to persuade him to drive the car. Counsel said Coles realised that a second offence of this kind invariably led to severe treatment, but there were reasons in this case why the crowning humiliation of imprisonment should not be inflicted. It was plain he had appreciated the leniency shown him,a year ago for the police were aware he had strictly - and, conscientiously observed the terms of his probation. His employers could say that he had been a hard and conscientious worker who could bo trusted. He was . highly skilled and his work was' of extreme importance. In other cases of this kind the court had shown clemency that had been justified and there was every reason that leniency in this instance would be respected. He wa4 a subject of the United States of America and he was particularly anxious that there should not be an impression that he was contemptuous of British law and justice, of which he had formed a very high opinion. It was the policy not to place on offenders the stigma of imprisonment unless it was found absolutely imperative that they should be sent to gaol. Coles had no criminal tendencies and had made many friends here. Mr. Quilliam concluded by appealing to the magistrate to show that an invariable attribute of the administration of British justice was the noble attribute of mercy. Mr. Tate said Coles had been warned by him of the consequences of again Offending, as others had been warned. He was aware of only one case of a second offence of this nature that he had not visited with imprisonment. While he desired to administer justice with as much mercy as possible, he had ■ a duty to the public. However, in view, of the circumstances related by counsel he would treat the matter with the utmost leniency.