CRIMINALS PAY PENALTY

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1931, Page 9

CRIMINALS PAY PENALTY

SUPREME COURT SENTENCES

THEFTS, FORGERY AND PERJURY.

RECEIVING OF STOLEN PROPERTY.

Sentences ranging from six months reformative detention to five years’ detention were imposed at the New Plymouth Supreme Court on Saturday mornino- bv Mr. Justice Reed on six prisoners who had been convicted of various offences at the criminal sessions. The sentences were: —

Harold Victor Ruscoe.—Receiving stolen goods, six months’ reformative detention.

Harold James Bedford.—Theft from a dwellin'’-, twelve months’ imprisonment and again declared an habitual criminal.

George Cassey.—Theft from a dwelling, six months’ imprisonment.

George Leonard Taylor.—Forgery and perjury, six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

Harold John Moule Thomson and Samuel Robert Darlow. —Theft of trust moneys, five years’ reformative detention.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Speaking on behalf of Ruscoe, who had been found guilty of receiving stolen cloth, Mr. N. H. Moss said he was a married man, 32 years of ago, with a child to support. From his record it would be seen that he had three pluvious convictions for theft, but they were all of a minor nature and spread over ten years. The last offence had occurred over five years ago. During the last five years, despite adverse circumstances, Ruscoe had made a fair show. In that time his father had died and he had taken over his small business and had liquidated considerable debts. He had also married and was buying a home for himself. He was living a quiet life. Counsel stressed Ins conduct during the last five years, as his early training and environment were not of th i best. . ■ Ruscoe had started as a jockey, ami it was in 1921 that he had first got into trouble. His whole early life had been a struggle against adverse circumstances, The depression had increased his difficulties and had caused him to yield to the temptation to use goods which had been put in his way. It was a foolish crime because the difficulty of using the material would be increased in view of the fact that he had to ..get another tailor to cut the .cloth. Moreover, he felt sure that his wife, who helped in the business, would not be a party to the crime. As Ruscoe now. had .somethino- worth while to hang, on to in- the shape of his business, a home and his wife, counsel asked that the court, treat him as leniently as possible. . ’ ' Addressing the. prisoner,. His ..Honour said that he might have felt, inclined to be more lenient but for the fact that Ruscoe had already been given a chance, havino- .been convicted three times for theft.“ On the last occasion the magistrate bad given him three years’ probation, which had not had the desired effect. He recognised, however, that it was some years since the previous conviction, and fox’ that reason would make the sentence- more .lenient than he would otherwise do. A sentence of six months’ reformative treatment was imposed. THEFT FROM DWELLING. Speaking on behalf of Harold James Bedford, who with George Cassey had been found guilty of theft from a dwelliiio- at Okaiawa, Mr. R. J. Brokenshirc said that in view of the declaration against Bedford in 1927 and the fact that he had already been in custody three months, he would ask that he be not sentenced to imprisonment, but referred to the Prisons Board to give him a further chance if the board considered it was warranted. . . Cassey, asked if he had anything to say, remarked that not knowing where jewellery was bought he would ask the judge to deal as -leniently as possible with him. He handed up a note which His Honour read. His Honour, in sentencing Bedford to twelve months’ imprisonment and again declaring him an habitual criminal, remarked “hat he was already an habitual criminal and had been let out on license by the Prisons Board. He would nowhave to go back again. Addressing Cassey, the Judge said that though there were a good number of convictions against him, thcie was only one of stealing, and that was some years ago. In the - present case he thought Bedford was the leading spirit. A sentence of six months’ imprisonment was imposed. IMPRISONMENT FOR PERJURY. Pleading for leniency for George Leonard Taylor, who had been found .ruiltv of forgery and perjury, Mr. I’. O’Dca said that the prisoner was a you rm man. Hit” Honour: He is 28 years of age. Mr. O’Dca said Taylor was a married man with one child. He and his wife were living apart. This was the Hist occasion he had been before the court. Regardin'* the present offences, he would sav that°“We were all wise after the event,” but without casting any reflection on the solicitor who had appeared for him in the lower court, he had been surprised that the prisoner had been put into the box to swear to a document. In fairness to the prisoner it should be said he did not want to go into the box. Indeed, he was not present in the court but had to be sent for at Alton. It was to his credit that he had not committed further perjury ir the Supreme Court. The prisoner, too, had been under a doctor’s care lor six months and was not very strong phvsically. Counsel did not think he was a man of very strong mentality. Pleading for probation, counsel did not think it would be misplaced. His Honour said that the jury had recommended leniency on account of the prisoner’s age and inexperience, and he always paid attention to such i ecommendations. They had based that recommendation on Taylors age, but surely a man of 28 had reached an age of intelligence! His Honour could not understand how prisoner had been advised to carry on a defence that was founded on sueix a palpable forgery. But for the recommendation of the jury he would have been impelled to send prisoner to prison for a considerable time in order to stop the perjury, which seemed to be becoming so rampant. Even <rivin<r effect to the recommendation, the fcast“ sentence he could give was six months’ hard labour.