FOR SENTENCE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1659, 28 January 1913, Page 4

FOR SENTENCE.

CASES IN SUPREME COURT. (Before His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman.) THE BURNHAM BOT. Three prisoners, who had pleaded guilty to offences in the Lower Court, appeared before Mr. Justice Chapman for sentence in the Supremo Court yesterday, morning. Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Offloe, represented the Crown. v A young man named Albert Henry Palmer was first called. The charge was one of theft committed at Wellington recently.. Ho was an old "Burnhaln boy," and had been convicted of theft on three previous occasions. . 1

Mr. R. H. Webb, who appeared for prisoner, aslced his Honour, to deal as leniently as possible with his client. Counsel pointed out that " Palmer had yielded to sudden temptation when, in a state of destitution.

His Honour remarked it was scarcely a question ofpunishment. Tho real question was:.. What was the best thing to do in the prisoner's*own interest? The public interest also had to be considered, and Palmer would consequently have to be imprisoned. His Honour would, however, give the matter further consideration, and the prisoner could bo brought before him again in a few days' time.

The Bicycle Thief and his Lawyer's Plea,

George Conn, alias Collins, also had Mr. R-, H. Webb, to appear ' for him. The charge against him was theft of a bicycle at Blenheim. '...■> 1 Mr. Webb stated; that he would havo had no hesitation in asking for probation for. his client had it not been for somo previous trouble. Counsel asked his Honour, however, to sentence the prisoner to as short a "term of, imprisonment as possible. He believed that if Conn had had the advantage of legal advice in the first place, h<S would havo been advised not to plead guilty, and there was very little doubt that; at the time on which he took the bicycle, he had been under the impression that he had the permission of the owner to do so. Mr. Ostler informed his Honour that the previous: conviction was for theft at Waipawa. This was in August last, when Conn had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment; The police report showed that Conn had not been in .tho Dominion for long. He had only arrived by the Arawa at the'end of 1911. ,He was only 22 years of age. .„ . • His Honour thought that the best thing that he could do for the prisoner would be to (send him to gaol, for reformative treatment, The' sentence of tho Court would be that' he be detained for twelvo months for such treatment. ■

Youthful Forger—"So Many of Thesa I Cases."

Joseph. Murphy, 18 rears of age, had nothing to say as to why. sentence of the Court should not be passed upon him in connection with a charge of forgery, to which'he', had pleaded guilty. . Mr. Ostler stated that, 10 years, ago, Murphy had' been sent to the Stoke School for absconding from anothor school. At Stoke ho obtained a good character, and had been licensed out in the employment ofsa,farmer at Jlotueka.. The policy had nothing against'him at Motueki except that he had'got into debt. ' His Honour remarked that tnero hfttl been so. many of these forgery cases— of young men trying to impose uiwn store-keepers-that ho felt bound to-impose a sentence of imprisoniaent,' but.it would bo a short one. The prisoner'would be detained' for months for reformative treatment.,; . > HOUSE BLOWN UP. NO' CHANGE .01? VENUE. Change of venue was asked (for -in, a motion heard before Mr. Justice Chapman in the Supreme Court yesterday. The application was by defendant in the caso of Rex v. Albert John Udy, a'chnrgo of wilful destruction of a house by means of an explosive. ■ . Mr. J. E. Mcwissll, of Carterton, appeared in support of tho motion, wh'ch was opposed by Mr, If. H. Ostler. . It appeared that the presiding justices au Carterton had committed the accused to Wellington on the application of the police on th? understanding that Sir. Maunsell would apply for change of venue to the Mnsterton sittings, which occur six weeks later than those at Wellington.

.- After'hearing counsel on both sides his Honour dismissed the motion, on* the ground that it would be more convenient that the prisoner sliould bo tried at Wei-' lmgton instead of at six weeks later.- This, would certainly havo been taken into account by tho justices if it had been n case of bail.' There would be no hardship or injustice to the prisoner in bringing witnesses to .Wellington and tho dato of his trial could bo grrang. ed I .within a reasonable time-by' applica. t'ioii to tho Crown Prosecutor. This would do away with the necessity of his waiting in Wellington for an unreasonable length of time.