COURT SENTENCES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20295, 3 May 1934, Page 12

COURT SENTENCES.

Gaol Term Imposed for Assault. SERIOUS OFFENCES. Three prisoners who had previously pleaded guilty were sentenced by Mr Justice Johnston in the Supreme Couit this morning. They were: Henry Herbert Pearce, sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment with hard labour on two charges of indecent assault against females. Arthur Albert King, sentenced to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour on a charge of breaking into a shop, with theft. Edward Milner, admitted to probation fer twelve months on a charge that he did supply a noxious thing with intent to secure a miscarriage. A Serious Crime. Pearce, who was not represented by counsel, handed in a statement to be read by the Judge. “ I hope that as you sav discipline is proving beneficial,” said his Honor. “ The crime is a very serious one. as serious as such an assault can be. The offence you committed against your twin daughters, aged 8, shows no mitigating circumstances. You have a long list of previous convictions, including assault, and it almost seems that ycu are heading towards being declared an habitual criminal. You are sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for two years and six months.’ Warned Previously. Pleading on behalf of King, Mr Russell said that prisoner was aged 23, ■was recently married, and was the father of a three-months-old baby. As scon as he was approached by the police prisoner was frank about his transgressions. While the report of the probation officer did not recommend probation, it did suggest leniency. Prisoner said that he committed the offence because he was “ hard up ” and his wife was in bad health. “ I would extend probation if your record allowed it,” said his Honor to the prisoner. “ You have been convicted previously for theft and fined, and in 1932 you were convicted and admitted to probation. Apparently that was not warning enough. This time the crime was a deliberate one. It is unfortunately often the case that the punishment affects innocent people as well as the man guilty of the crime. You are sentenced to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour.” Probation Extended. Edward Milner, said Mr Burns, who appeared on prisoner’s behalf, was a married man, aged forty-eight, with four children. He had no previous convictions. Counsel realised that the offence was regarded seriously, both from the view of public policy and the effect the act might have upon the girl concerned. But there were extenuating circumstances in this case.

The prisoner, said Mr Burns, had not been responsible for the girl’s condition. and had supplied the drug purely to help her. She had issued a summons against him for affiliation, but her solicitor did not go on with the matter. Later, when the police questioned him and he frankly admitted supplying the -drug, they did not go on with the affiliation and maintenance proceedings. The drug he gave the girl was harmless. Actually it contained less of the ingredient objected to than did some ordinary medicines. The police could not have regarded the matter as seriously as usual, for they delayed the criminal action for a long time, and summoned prisoner instead of arresting him in the ordinary way. The probation officer’s report was not entirely favourable, but prisoner’s conduct had improved over the last twelve months. “ Counsel has stated the case fairly,” said the Judge. s “ Nevertheless, I have to take a serious view of this particular crime. It is true that the drug used was not particularly harmful—in fact, it was practically innocuous—but the matter is serious all the same. It seems on the report that you are slipping downhill. It is more out of consideration for your family than for yourself that I am extending you the benefit of probation. You will be closely watched.”