YEARS IN GAOL

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19816, 21 February 1936, Page 6

YEARS IN GAOL

YOUNG MAN’S RECORD. FURTHER TERM IMPOSED MORRINSVILLE BURGLARY CASE. Having spent a large part of the last 15 years in gaol, Norman Harold McCormick, carpenter, aged 30, appeared for sentence before Mr Justice Callan in the Supreme Court. Hamilton, this morning. McCormick was found guilty by a jury yesterday of breaking, entering and theft at Morrinsville. His Honour stated that since yesterday he had seen the prisoner’s list of previous convictions which dated from 1921 and which included convictions for attempted burgl&ry, burglary, abduction and escaping from custody He invited counsel to consider whether the prisoner should not be declared an habitual, criminal. A determined burglary had been committed by a man with a big list of previous convictions who had come recently out of prison and who had been treated with kindness by utter strangers who were prepared to put honest work In his way. For the prisoner, Mr W. Noble pointed out that the first offence was committed when McCormick wa)s 16. He seemed to have cultivated bad company and counsel had little doubt that others were associated with him in his latest crime. McCormick had been mostly concerned in attempts to commit crimes and if he were declared an habitual criminal he would be utterly ruined. He did not regard the case as hopeless. Mr H. T. Gillies, the Crown Solicitor, pointed out that leniency in the past had produced no effect. There was very little time in the last 15 years that McCormick had not been in gaol. “Ant!-Boolal Conduct." “When in doubt I think the proper course is Ho err on the side of mercy,” said His Honour. “The fact that perfect strangers were kind to him weighs heavily with me. It makes his conduct peculiarly anti-social. It ts a frequent complaint that when a convicted person comes out of gaol the community is afraid of him. In view of the fact that he is now only 30 and some of the offences were committed when he was 16 and 17 I will not declare him an habitual criminal. However, he must have a sufficient sentence to impress on him that the least the forces of the law can do is progressively to increase his punishment. If he is again convicted he will certainly be declared an habitual criminal.” Sentence of three years’ imprisonment with hard labour was imposed. Question of Restitution. Mr Gillies then applied for an order for restitution of the stolen money. He said four of the notes had been definitely identified as the property of Wallace Supplies, Ltd. Mr Noble contended that it was impossible definitely to identify the money. The mast witnesses could say was that the the notes found on McCormick were similar to those which were in the store. His Honour had told the jury that it should not convict on the evidence concerning the notes alone. His Honour said he could not escape the conclusion that the jury accepted in toto the evidence of" the Crown because it was a case which could be proved only by an accumulation of a number of circumstances against the accused. lOne of those circumstances was that the accused was penniless before the burglary and apparehlly well in funds after it. Only two of the new bank notes could be identified but the rest of the money resembled that stolen. It was implicit that the jury believed that all the money came from the Morrinsville store. He would exclude the amount of £5 which the accused claimed belonged to a woman friend. An order was accordingly made for the return of all the money to Wallace Supplies, Ltd-, except £5.