LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1561, 3 October 1912, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

CRIME SENTENCES. [Before Sir "Robert Stout, C.J.] MAN WHO STOLE THE STATUTESMITIGATION PLEA. HIS TASTE FOB ABSINTIIU, ETC. Four prisoners, who had pleaded guilty to various offences ill the. tower Court, wero brought, up for sentence in tlio Supremo Court yesterday morning, before tliu Chief Justice (Sir. liobert Stout). Jlr. H. 11. Ostler, of the Crown ~Uw Office, represented the Crown. A Fit of Dizziness, Lack of Memory, and a Taste for Absinthe. Charles Clement Fish, (H years of age, who, while occupying the' position ot Parliamentary messenger, committed theltof -some. 28 sets of the. New Zealand Statute.*, WSS placed in the dock. Detailed particulars of the. thefts and of the disposal of tlio stolen property were published on the occasion ot accused's appearance in tlio Lower Court. • Jlr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared oa behalf Df Fish, called two witnesses. Frederick William Fish, tobacconist, a son. of the prisoner, gave evidence as to his father being seized with a lit of dizziness over' , two years ago, and being subsequently in ft state of coma lor three weeks. At that lime accused showed exactly the same symptoms as that from which witness's grandfather had suffered, lhe latter had been committed to a mental hospital. Since the fit of dizziness referred to, tlio accused had changed completely. He had altered towards his wife, from whom ho was now separated, had lost his lovo for flowers, and had developed a taste for absinthe. if is Honour hero remarked that he did not know that they manufactured absinthe in New Zealand. .. ?Jr- "■Wilf-Jrd: Oh, yes, your Honour. , t Ilia.Honour: Of course, in Belgium and bwitzerland it is recognised as such a rank poison that they prohibit its raanu'factiiTc. .

-Witness, continuing, gave ovidence as to tho illnesses of othor members of the family. To Mr. Ostler: He was sure that it wus in I'ebruary, 1910, that his Cather had been prostrated by the fit of dizziness. ; Uiarles Ualson, Parliamentary Librarian,'considered that Fish had not been himself during the last eighteen months or two years; .He had observed a lack of memory. ■ ■'•-.

lo.JIr. Ostler: Ho would not say that I'ishwas mentally defective, but lie was the last man that he would have suspected of the offence. He had known him thirty years ago as a member of Ballauce's committee- in Wangamii. .Mr,, Wilford then dwelt upon the evidence tendered, and put in a strong plea on behalf of his client, whose age, previous sobsd habits,, and previous good character sbonld;(be urged) be taken into account. ■ This case, ho suggested, was different from others of its kind, and tho evidence pTodnced showed that there was Eomo trouble in the brain, which altered the whole character of the man. It was not for him (counsel) to say what should be done with the prisoner, but he asked his Jlonour to temper justice with mercy. Ostler put in the gaol surgeon's to the effect that Fish suffered from insomnia, and was of an excitablo nature. Mr. Ostler also drew attention to.tho fact that the theft of the statutes had "commenced before Fish had been seized with tho fit of dizziness in February.- 1910. ,;■ Mr. AVilford then mentioned that his client's crime was nol. one committed by 'him as: a person in a position of trust. He hnd not been in chargo of any of the statutes which ho had stolen. His Honour said that, on necount of the nature of tho offences (extending as they did over a lengthy period) he could not grant probation. There was only one thing that he could do, and that was to impose 'imprisonment. Consideration would be given to the age of the prisoner ,and to the fact, that nothing had been known against him over a period of more than 30 years in the Dominion. He would be sentenced to nine months' imprisonment without hard labour. 'Mr. Wilford asked if his Honour would be prepared to,shorten the term in view of the fact that a sentence without hard labour, did not admit of any remission for good conduct. His Honour agreed to make tho sentence eight months' imprisonment. ' Why So Many From Burnham? A. youth, named Clarence Percival Wells, .had nothing to say as to why sentence of the Court should not bo passed in connection with a charge of theft and another charge of housebreaking to whicU ho had pleaded guilty at Fo.xton. There were two previous convictbns against him. ''In 1905 ho had been sent to Burnham Industrial School as a result of three charges of theft, while quite recently ho had been convicted of theft in Wellington. - ■ . ' His Honour remarked that it was difficult to understand why so many boys from Burnham had been coming before 'the Court. It probably had something to do with heredity. He warned tho prisoner against the folly 'o£ setting out on a criminal career, which must end in his l)cing declared a habitual criminal. On this occasion a heavy sentence would not bo passed, and the prisoner's future would rest with liuhself. He would bo sentenced to twelve months' reformative treatment in tho Invercargill Prison. Birched Four Years Ago. A youthful offender also was Ralph Bal. combe, who had enteral a ploft of guilty to a churgo of breaking and entering and theft. . Ho was not altogether new to crime, as iii May, 1908, he had been birched for theft, while in February, 1910, he had been fined for a like offence. His Honour informed tho youth that ho must not imagine that he could go on doing as ho pleased, nor could he expect to get any pleasure in life by continually being in and out of gaol. A lenient sentence would be passed on this occasion—twelve months' reformative treatment in the Invercargill Prison. Mr. Oslor stated that of tho sum ot .£0 10s. Cd. stolen by Balcoinbe, the sum of Xβ te. Td. had been found in his possession, and also two pairs of new boots which he had purchased for the sum of £1 10s.—part of the money. He asked for an order for restitution of tho money and boots. • His Honour mado an order according- ' ' The Smyth Case—MasUrton. Having pleaded guilty to a charge of theft from tho person at Mtisterton, Geo. Alfred Smyth, alias Geo. Ashton, offered no objection to tho passing of sentence. He was iU years of age, and in December, ■ 1910, had been convicted of two charges of theft. . . In passing sentence, his Honour remarked upon tho fact that prisoner, while working in a No-Licenso district, had gone from there into an adjoining licensing district, and a result of the trip was that ho had-subsequently robbed lus mates. A sentence of 10 months'' imprisonment with hard labour was imposed.'