SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1901, 8 November 1913, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

TWO PRISONERS SENTENCED. THE MINUTE CASE. Sentences were passed at the Criminal Sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday by Mr. Justice Chapman, two prisoners having been . remanded for sentence on the previous day. Harry Somes, who had been found guilty of. carn.il knowledge, and who was married three days after the last offence with which he was charged, was the first prisoner placed in the dock, Mr. Wilford, who defended' him, said that prisoner was a newly married man, his wife had no means, his children by his first wife had been drifting into odd houses, and therefore, whatever sentence was passed on him would fall on innocent people. Except for this charge prisoner had been a worthy citizen. His Honour said it was impossible for the Court to regulate sentences according to the needs of the families of the accused. The object of punishment was to warn those inclined to .offend in the same way what awaited them for sentences like that. That was obvious'ly 1 a case in which he must inflict a severe sentence. He took into consideration the recommendation of the jiiry, but prisoner was convicted of four different charges, and on. each occasion he must ha.vo felt tow monstrously wicked his act was. _ Had it not been for the recommendation of the jury he would probably have found it necessary to inflict a separate sentence in respect of each of the four chargcs. Had the Legislature mitde a provision for flogging prisoner would have come perilously near such punishment. Prisguer was the trusted friend of the household which lie betrayed, and he had broken that trust in the way that the Court had heard. He would he sentenced to five years' imprisonment ' with hard labour. Prisoner: The Court has found me guilty of this charge, but.as there is a God above me I am innocent of it. 1 go out of this Court an innocent man. MINIFIE SENTENCED. PLEA OF MENTAL DISTRACTION. Samuel Charles Minifie, Willis Street, next came up for sentence, the jury having found,him not guilty of the charge of attempting to murder his wife, but guilty of doing her grievous." bodily harm. ■ Mr. Wilford, in defence, said that prisoner's act was due to a deep and abiding affection for his wife. It waß difficult for ordinary people to believe that, but those who made studies of human nature and who understood the queer tricks which occurred where affection came in could 'realise that it was possible to do an- injury such as prisoner had done whilst in love:with the object of his injuries. If prisoner had not been in love with her he would not have crossed her path again after separation,-but he dogged her footsteps, and prayed her. to come back to him. When prisoner produced the revolver held to his wifo's head, threatened to shoot her, and then put it back in his pocket, he (counsel) could not help thinking that was the act of a desperate man who believed that such a threat would have its effect where persuasion had failed.

His Honour: But surely that was the act of a dangerous man ? Mr. Wilford, continuing, Baid ithat prisoner had become so worked up with imaginary grievances, . continuously sleepless nights, that his mind became unhinged, and lie had a wrong sense of proportion. No fewer than eleven bottitles of sleeping draughts were taken from his house after his'arrest. His Honour, in passing sentence, said that prisoner had persecuted his wife for several months. It was quite possible that ho was fond of her, but he had assaulted her in such a .way that probably for tho rest of her life one of her arms would be partially paralysed. Tho other chargcs ■ were ordin-ary,-and he proposed to order reformative treatment in these cases, so that the Prison Board could consider his case. He would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment for wounding his wife, and three years' reformative treatment in the other cases.