ROBBERY UNDER ARMS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9320, 21 August 1908, Page 3

ROBBERY UNDER ARMS.

THE PRISONERS SENTENCED. LENIENT PENALTIES. At the Supremo Court this morning, before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston, Joseph Johnstoii, aged twentyfive, Frank Bolton, aged twenty-two, and James Keegan, aged nineteen, were' brought up for on various convictions of robbery under arms and breaking and entering. Frank Bolton, when asked if he had anything to say before sentence was passed, asked for leave to appeal, as the verdict of the jury was entirely without foundation in his case. His Honor: "1 have never heard a case in which the evidence was more clear and cogent. It would have been impossible for any jury to have come to any different conclusion after hearing the overwhelming evidence in your case that you were one of the party of three who committed these crimes. Your request is ridiculous and absurd. If you have anything to say in regard to Ithe penalty to be imposed upon you you may say it." Bolton handed in a written state-^ ment for his Honor's perusal. His Honor, after reading the statement, said -that it only amounted to tho fact that during some time Bolton had been at work, and that for the past two years he had not been before the Court. " Bolton, however, appeared to have been convicted on four charges of breaking arid entering. These offences might have been committed about the same time, but there were four convictions. His Honor then read through Johnston's list of previous sentences, which included three months m 1897, one month at Auckland in. l»y», six months in 1899, six months for breaking and entering, six months for theft from the person, tivo years, at Wellington in 1903, three years at Auckland in 1905 and a later sentence of twelve months. Mr Russell, Acting Crown Prosecutor, said that the prisoner was also committed tor trial at Gisborne on further char&es of breaking and entering in April last. Johnston's criminal record covered so many years of his life that very little of it was left unac-. counted for. The only thing known against Bolton was his conviction m 1905 on four charges of theft. Mr Harvey appeared on behalf ot Keegan, and stated that his client had never been before .the Court before. He had documentary evidence from Auckland which showed that Keegan s character had been a good one up to tho time of the present trouble. Johnston was Keegan's brother-in-law, and it appeared possible that Johnston and Bolton led Keegan. astray entirely. Keegan was only nineteen, and had first-class discharges from small steamers and ketches. Ho would not ask for probation, but he asked for lenient treatment of what was a nrst effence. He presumed fceegan would be treated on entirely different lines from the other prisoners in, -respect to the punishment to be conferred. Mr Russell said that Mr Harvey had fairly stated the case in regard to Keegan, who appeared to be a hardworking fellow, the son of respectable people. The suggestion that -Keegan came under the influence of the other bwo prisoners for the bad was probably correct. „ In sentencing Johnston his Honor said-— "You have been convicted in fouV' oases of robbery from the person while bearing arms, or, in other words, robbery under arms. You hare also been convicted in two cases of burglary. If you had been convicted tor robbery alone I might have looked upon your offences as less serious, and, but ' for the fact that one of you actually fired upon a man, I would have looked upon the bearing of firearms as merely a piece of bravado, and not as a serious attempt to use weapons. Could it have been ascertained which man used the weapon, that man would have been charged with a much more serious offence." Mr Russell said that, in fairness to the accused, he must mention that in tho case of Mathers, which had not come before tho Court, no firearms had been used, although Mathers resisted tho accused. His Honor said that the us© of firearms at all was a serious thing, and should be so treated. In additon to the robbery charges, there were two cases of burglary. Johnston had unfortunately a very bad record, notwithstanding his age. He knew nothing about the "earlier years of Johnston's life, but he had become a criminal early. Johnston was liable, under the recent ' Act, to be treated as a^i habitual criminal and dealt with as auch. Looking at his comparative youth, however, his Honor said he felt reluctant to put the prisoner in a position which would leave it to the discretion of the Executive to treat him practically as a criminal for life. But even eliminating as far as possible the j weapon element from the case, it was a case for a substantial sentence, i Should Johnstoii be convicted of any crime in future he might be absolutely certain that the greater part of the rest of his life would be spent under restraint. ,In sentencing Johnston to five years' imprisonment he Avas treating him with great leniency, in the hope that the weight of the threat held out against him would deter him from further crime. He sentenced Bolton to four years' imprisonment, and Keegan to twelve months' imprisonment, the sentences being on each charge, to run concurrently. '• On the application of Mr Russell, his Honor made an order for the pro rata division among those who had been robbed of £4 15s lOd found in the possession of the prisoners.