THE LAW’S PENALTIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16585, 18 November 1921, Page 7

THE LAW’S PENALTIES.

PRISONERS SENTENCED TO-DAY. £SO OR THREE MONTHS’ FOR BOOKMAKING. Friday is apparently a day set apart for the sentencing of prisoners in the Supreme Court. To-day three received from Mr Justice Adams the penalties of the law. Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the Crown’s cases. THE BUILDING FRAUD. Alfred Jeynes, alias Donald Joyce, was Eentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for having obtained £1558 12s from E. A. Langford, a builder, by false representations. Prisoner had been extradited from Australia. He was represented by Mr O. T. J. Alpers Mr Alpers admitted that the offence was a serious **jne, as it had involved very heavy loss to Langford, who contracted Avith the prisoner. Jeynes was a comparatively young man, and had carried on a genuine business in Australia, holding a Commission of the Peace in Queensland. He had a wife and three. t'oung children dependent upon him. When he came to New Zealand he had a bank balance of £778. He bought a section for cash, and then quit© naturally raised money on mortgage. The real temptation came when he got the £BOO mortgage money. Counsel asked his Honor to punish Jeynes with somethincr short of the maximum to mark the fact that he was a first offender, and had hitherto borne a good character. Mr Donnelly said that the theft had involved the unfortunate builder in a heavy loss. Jeynes came from Australia under a false name- His passport documents showed that when ho came to New Zealand he did not intend to stay. The fact that he had paid a high rate of interest on the mortgage suggested that he wished to get the principal and clear off with it. He had become bankrupt in Queensland. In Perth he had been concerned with a company of doubtful repute. Afterwards he went to Canada, and. returning -to Australia, became interested in the Scottish Loan and Discount Company, one of a doubtful character. Accused’s fraud had been carried out in a skilful and ingenious manner. His Honor said lie agreed that the case was a serious one, and was forced to the conclusion that it was deliberate. The prisoner had a clean record no to the present so far as was known. He would take that into consideration and sentence prisoner to nine months’ imprisonment. BOOKMAKING CASES. Thomas Long was fined £SO, in default three months’ imprisonment, for bookmaking. He was represented by Mr F- D. Sargent. Mr Sargent said that prisoner was a married man with a delicate wif©\ and three young children. Apparently he was an undeigraduate in bookmaking. At present lie was without means whatever. Ho asked for leniency, especially having regard to the jury’s strong recommendation to mercy and that he was only the second person convicted of the offence in Christchurch. Mr Donnelly said it was true that prisoner had carried on only a small bookmaking business. He was in no way a reputed bookmaker in the eyes of the police. Previously he had been engaged in other occupations than bookmaking. His Honor said he felt that full weight must be given to the strong recommendation of the jury. It had not been shown that prisoner had been habitually engaged in the offence. He could not, however, close his eyes to the fact that the Legislature looked upon the offence as a serious one. Accused would be fined £SO, in default three months’ imprisonment. On Mr Sargent’s request prisoner was allowed a year in which to pay the fine, the sum to be paid in quarterly instalments. Frederick Dacre, on a similar charge, was dealt with iii the same manner. Dacre was represented by Mr C. S. Thomas. Mr Thomas said that the case was similar to the last one. Prisoner was a married man with four children. His wife was a delicate woman, and a cripple. Ho had had a good record and the reputation of being a particularly good worker. lie had learned his lesson, and was only a beginner in respect of the offence. He could assure his Honor that he would never again come before the Court charged with such an offence. Mr Donnelly said he agreed as to prisoner’s record. His operations were smaller than Long’s. Accused had, however given a statement on oath of the circumstances which was very difficult to credit. The jury had specinllv commended prisoner to the Court’s lenient treatment. His Honor said it seemed that prisoner did not know so much about the practical workings of the game as Long. Nevertheless, the nature of the defence was markedly different from Long’s. He was not prepared to differentiate in the penalty. Prisoner would be fined £SO, with a year in which to pay, in default three months’ imprisonment.