SUPREME COURT

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 131, 28 May 1932, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

Prisoners Sentenced HAMER CASES DISPOSED OF WIFE COMMITTED TO BORSTAL Sentence of two years in a Borstal Institute, was passed upon Constance Hamer, who was found guilty at the Supremo Court, Napier, on charges of breaking, entering and stealing and of receiving stolen goods. His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. His Honour stated that probation was out of the question as the prisoner had committed not an isolated offence, but fifteen or sixteen. It was true that the jury, on his direction, had dealt with only one case of breaking and entering, and they very properly returned a verdict of guilty; in fact, they could have done nothing else. “It appears that you and your husband set out to furnish a home,” said His Honour, “and you were doing it with goods stolen from other people. You were not only furnishing a home but were stealing consumable goods as well. It was unnecessary for you to do this. Your husband was receiving a good wage, while you were earning a livelihood as well. You have taken goods from people who could ill-afford them, and were probably much worse off than you were. Such a series, of offences cannot go unpunished.” Punishment as stated above, was then jfassed on all charges, the sentences to be concurrent. Husband Sentenced A sentence of three years’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed on William Hamer, who pleaded guilty to fifteen charges of breaking, entering and theft and three charges of theft and with being a rogue and vagabond. “I don’t know of any excuse that I can put up on behalf of the prisoner ‘ ’ said counsel, who appeared on his behalf. “You have pleaded guilty to a a series of very grave offences of breaking and entering, and burglary. This class of offence has become very rife and something must be done, as far as is possible by the Court, to put a check to it,” said His Honour. “It must be plainly shown that this is not the way to acquire a home and to set up housekeeping. It was the merest

chance that you were caught after committing all these offences.” A sentence of throe years was passed on each of the major charges and twelve months on the lesser charges, the sentences being concurrent. “Receiving” Charges Benjamin Hamer, "who pleaded guilty to six charges of receiving ptolon property, was sentenced to a period not exceeding eighteen months’ reformative treatment. “I don’t wish to minimise the offences, but this is a case of a young man who had received only goods of a personal nature and not those of a type that he could have profitably disposed of,” said counsel in appealing for leniency. “Ho has never been in trouble before,’’ ho added. “The probation officer reports that ho is one of those gentlemen who hides his sins under the cloak of piety,” pointed out His Honour. • “He has been merely a church attendant and not an officer of the church,” said counsel. “The probation officer said that he was as bad as his brother; if that were the case the police would have linked him up with the other charges. He foolishly accepted the goods from his brother and they do not total more than £5O in value. If granted probation ho would have a chance to make good. Several citizens of integrity are prepared to look after him, and I urge that he be given a chance consistent with reasonable punishment.” Sentence as above was then passed, His Honour stating that he could not grant probation in such a case. Other Cases A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed upon a Maori, Hirini Tihcma, who was convicted of breaking, entering and theft. The prisoner had nothing to say. John Lewis, guilty of forgery, was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labour. In asking for leniency, his counsel said that the offences had been committed when Lewis’s powers of resistence were restricted as a result of a drinking bout. His Honour (to the prisoner): If this had been the only offenco against you since the time when you were deemed to have changed for the better, I would have dealt with you much more leniently.

He went on to say that before 1916 Lewis had been declared an habitual

criminal, and his record had been a particulrly bd one. Two years’ probation was the sentence passed upon Harry Hampton, for breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime. His counsel asked for leniency, stating that up to about 12 months ago Hampton had led a respectable life. He then entered into a partnership which was dissolved in November last, as a result of which he had been thrown on to relief work, with a number of obligations to meet, including a wife to support. “With a good deal of hesitation I propose to commit you to probation,” said His Honour. “I am afraid that if there is not less of this class of offence the judges of New Zealand will have to impose heavier sentences. I take into consideration the fact that you are only 23- years old and that you have not been previously convicted. Your future is now in you? own hands. ” In addition to the term of probation Hampton was ordered to take out a prohibition order, to report weekly to the probation officer and 10 pay the cost of the prosecution. “I understand that you do not want to go to Borstal,” laid his Honour, when Frederick Mark Lickfold was placed in the dock for sentence for a breach of his probation. “It doesn’t seem too pleasant,” replied the prisoner. “I would do bettor up on the hill than down below.” His Honour: That is one of the reasons why I am going to send you to Borstal. The sentence of the Court is that you be committed to Borstal for a term not exceeding three years.