STRANGE RECITAL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1235, 18 September 1911, Page 3

STRANGE RECITAL.

WHAT SCOTT'S COUNSEL URGED. MAN'S CURIOUS FAD, BOOKS, THERMOMETERS, CLASSES AT UNIVERSITY, ETC. Three prisoners, wlio had pleaded guilty to various offcnces in the Lower Court, wcro brought up for sentence in the Supremo Court on Saturday morning before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Mr. T. Jveavc, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the Crown. John Scott, lately in the employment of the Wellington Meat Export Co., Ltd., was placed in the dock to bo sentenced on four charges of matiDg false entries in tlie books of the firm and five charges of theft of moneys. The offcnces extended over a lengthy period, and a substantial amount was involved. Scott's Salary and Means. Mr. D. Smith, who appeared for Scott, referred to liis case as a painful one. The prisoner was '61 years of age, and, up till the time of the present charges, lie had borne an excellent character. He had been an industrious and dutiful citizen, had reared a family, and his liome life had been of the test. At birth, Scott had_ br.en a weakling. He had eome to New Zealand when a child, and had alwaj-g worked as a clerk. He was married in IS7B, and, from a small income, his salary had risen to .£SOO a year. That was in ISO 2. He had endeavoured to give his children a good education, and himself also, and, in doing so, had spent all 'his income. He had never anticipated that his salary would be reduced, but in 190G, the company went in for a scheme of retrenchment, and, sinco then, he had been paid only JG3OO a year. Then his troubles began in earnest. He liad found himself unable to cut down his standard of living, and, between 1908 and 190S, he had borrowed JCBOO from friends, partly without security. In January, 1910, he became ambitious, and wanted a home of his own,, and so he purchased the leasehold of his house, for which he had to pay .£S 10s. per month. Living expenses absorbed about .£l3 per month, and ha had only M per month left with which to pay interest and buy clothes, etc. His Cameras, Paints, Typewriters, and' Thermometers, At this time life was a perfect torment to him, and he did not know how to make both ends meet. Every year there passed through his hands about half a million pounds, and the- amount of his deficiencies seemed a trifle wlieu compared with this, and so he was tempted, and fell. He was a man of cultured taste, and had attended university lectures in physics, French, economics, and mental science, besides taking private tuition. Ho had bought.the best and latest books, though inauy of them never had the leaves .cut, and, whenever lie wanted money, ho would send some of them off to an auction room. His mania also ran in other directions. Ho bought up-to-date cameras, sets of paints, a typewriter that had never been touched, and curious thermometers. Only this year he had had the telephone put on to his house, and, recently, had sent his wife for a trip to Australia. His principal object in life seemed to be to givo other people pleasure. Counsel submitted that his client was not vicious, but was simply a victim to his temperament. ' Evidenco in support of counsel's statements was given by J. M. Richardson, of Wellington Terrace, company director; S. Mackay, bookseller, from whom the prisoner had purchased books, Richard Brown, bookseller, who had also had business dealings with tho prisoner; and John Scott, junr. Mr. Smith then went'on to emphasise liis point that his client was merely the victim of a fatal ambition to cultivate his mind, and give pleasure to those around him. He had never been a drunkard or a gambler. Counsel submitted, |therefore, that he was entitled to probation. What the Judge Thought Of It. Tho Chief Justice: I don't think I can do that, Mr. Smith. The Court of Appeal lias decided in cases of embezzlement, extending over a term, and where tho thing was not a sudden outburst of crime, that probation cannot be granted. You cannot expect mo to set aside what tho Court of Appeal has laid down. Counsel then asked for leniency. Scott, ho said, was not physically ablo to do hard labour. His Honour said that sentencing a prisoner was a part of his judicial duties that he did not like, but he must fulfil it, and do what had been laid down by the Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of the First Offenders' Probation' Act. He, however, would take into consideration prisoner's age, his previous honourable career, and the fact that lie was of weak will and not accustomed to hard labour. It appeared as if he suffered from what psychologists would call megalomania. Unfortunately wo had not yet arrived at that stage of advancement where the lino was drawn between normal acts and those not normal, and it might bo a long time before wc did. There was therefore nothing left but to administer the law, but he would pass a very light sentence—nine months' imprisonment without hard labour. TWICE AN HABITUAL. Ernest James Wilson, alias Ernest Taylor, who had pleaded guilty to five charges of falso pretences, and two charges of forgery and uttering, had Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon to speak on his behalf. Mr. Fitzgibkon, admitted that his client had already beon'senteuced as an habitual criminal by Mr. Justice Edwards, and that there was a long list of previous convictions, but he was only 25 years of age, and there was still some hope for him under the system of reform obtaining in Now Zealand. His lapses were duo to his being addicted to drink. Unfortunately he had never been taught a trade, and was purely a farm labourer. Mr. Fitzgibban suggested that his Honour should sentence the prisoner to-a reformatory, where lie could be taught a trado and then when he came out ho would have something to help him to earn an honest living. His Honour remarked that it was difficult to know what to do with the prisoner, who had been declared a habitual criminal in February. 19011, and let out of gaol by tho Prisons' Board at the end of 1910. People seeing him here again might imagine that leniency with prisoners was of no avail, but his Honour did not hold that view. Ho warned tho prisoner that ho could havo no happiness in life if he continued a career of crime. The sentence of the Court would be 18 months' imprisonment on each charge in the Invereargill prison, the sentences to be concurrent, and the prisoner to be again declared an habitual criminal. TREATED AS FIRST OFFENDER. A youth, named Louis Grant, had admitted that on .Tilly 23 last, at Te Wharau, he forged the name of F. J. Williams to a cheque for ,Cl,j 18s. Gd„ drawn on the Union Bank of Australia, Gisborne, and uttered to F. C. H. Cotter. Accused handed a lengthy statement to the learned judge. Tliero was a previous conviction against Grant in 11107, but as he was only 21 years of age now, his Honour, after perusing tho statement, treated him as a first offender, and ordered him to come up for sentence when called upon. AN APPEAL CASE. On Saturday, tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard an appeal from the decision of Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the ease in which David Clark, agent, IKi Manners'Slreet, Wellington, sued Amy S. iiurraelough, proprietor of llie Barraelotigh Herbal Proprietary, 13 Myrtle Crescent, Wellington, to recover the'sum of .CjC Is. alleged to lie due for services rendered in the supervision of her business. Defendant had counter-claimed for .£3O 15s. td., aileged to be due as balance of moneys received by plaintiff for the use of tho defendant and not accounted for. In his judgment, his Worship said that neither in keeping tho books nor in fulfilling any other duties, did tho plaintilf appear to have carried out his duties in a satisfactory manner. A certified ac-

couutant had stated that the accounts had not becu properly kept, and could havo been so kept at from =£10 to -clo per annum. In his Worship's opinion tho defendant had not only been amply paid for any services which he may have rendered, but had been greatly overpaid, and, therefore, his claim would fail. Judgment was for defendant on the coun-ter-claim, too. Clark appealed on tho ground that the findings of the Magistrate were against tho weight of evidence; erroneous and not justified by the evidence; and that the judgment on tho counter-claim was wrong in point of law as there was 110 fact found by the magistrate to justify the conclusion; and that he drew a false inference from any facts which he had found. Mr. E. G. Jellicoe appeared for appellant, and Mr. E. K. ICirkcaldio for respondent. His Honour gave his judgment at the close of tho case, deciding that the magistrate's decision must stand, with the exception of a deduction of £9 10s. for salary. No costs were allowed.