SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2213, 10 June 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Tins Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) EMBEZZLEMENT. Wm. Henry Cardwell was indicted for having fit Dunedin, in March last, embezzled monies, the property of his then employers, Messrs Wilson and Birch. Mr Barton defended. The Jury after an absence of about l.j hours returned a verdict of Not Guilty. POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAL. The trial of David Storey for stealing at watch at Switzers, was, op the prisoner’s application, postponed till September, no depositions having yet been received, j EMBEZZLEMENT. ■ In the case of John Creagh, it was intimated that the Crown did not intend to proceed with the eases of forgery and uttering preferred against him. At the termination of the last ease he was brought up for sentence on the charges to which he had pleaded, guilty. In answer to the usual questions, he that his age was 26, and that he had nothing'to say why sentence should not be passed upon him, Mr Barton ; I have a few remarks to make to your Honor, in the hopo that— His Honor: It is not competent for you now to address the Court. If you have any witnesses to character you may call them); or if you have any legal points to urge against sentence being passed I will hoar you. Mr Barton intimated that he had nothing to say against .sentence being passed ; but he imderstWd it was usual for counsel to address the Court for the' prisoner. Mr Cook war called, but spoke at times in such a low tone of voice as to ho inaudible to the reporters. He was understood to say that the pviaojjcr had been in his employ for the last seven years, and during a part of that time tilled very responsible situations. Me v/as extremely well educated and possessed of .considerable legal attainments. Lately, however, he bad" fallen into bad habits, the result being that he had committed tho offences he was now charged with. He was utterly at a loss to account for his having acted as he did, and lie had been obliged" to constitute the present prosecution to vindicate his own character. He referred to the fact of the prisoner having a wife and largo family and hope I the Court could see its way to pass a light sentence, which might be the means of enabling him to commence life anew in some other sphere, wheu he trusted ho would again earn an honest livcUbool. Mr Barton referral the Court to the fact

of the prisoner being a solicitor who had just started in business, and his fall from so respectable a position would be more keenly felt by him than the term of imprisonment that might be imposed. He hoped the Court would take that fact into consideration. His Honor : On the other hand, his circumstances ought to have kept him out of crime—his knowledge, education, and position, and the high salary he received should have kept him out of it. It is true that when a man of his rank suffers a given amount of punishment—whether one or a dozen years—it is a much more grevious punishment to him to lose his position than it would he to a man of lower rank. Again it may be urged that a considerable portion of the punishment falls unfortunately on those who arc dependant upon him, still it is no reason why he should not be punished. In sentencing the prisoner, liis Honor said I was fully prepared to hoar, after reading the depositions in your case, that you would [dead guilty, because it was quite clear that the whole case disclosed by the evidence of the witnesses was such that there could be no substantial defence. However, I am willing to take the fact of your having pleaded guilty as some evidence, at all events, of contrition. You appear to have borne a very good character up to a co:tun time; you wore in the confidential employment of Mr Cook at a very liberal salary, and iu such a position, at all events, with a fair prospect of making such an income throughout the greater part of your life—unless prevented by illness or other misfortune—as to support your family decently. It is not merely taking money —the charge you have pleaded guilty to involves a gross broach of , trust. Your counsel has very properly urged that whatever punishment may be awarded, your prospects are altogether, or nearly so, ruined ; and that the fact of respectable parentage, connexion, and respectable and perhaps superior education, would tend to make that punishment much more grevious in your case. This is perfectly true ; hut on the other hand, these considerations, and the knowledge of the position you held,, render the very offence itself less excusable than it would be in the ease of a poor miserable wretch, partly uneducated or not educated at all, whose life is perhaps a struggle for very existence. Your case is one whicli I have always found it extremely difficult to deal with--extremely difficult in the first place to vindicate the law by a proper punishment, by awarding such a punishment as would not make others suffering punishment feel themselves aggrieved, and not offend the public sense guise of what is due to the crime. There most be always, or nearly so, eases where the judge can exercise his discretion. The law leaves very largo discretion to the judges. I often think it is much too great. I. should be very glad if it were possible that offences could be more minutely defined and a more exact punishment awarded to them, instead, of leaving so much discretion to the judges. lam, however, to exercise that discretion to the best of my ability. Finding that the offence you have pleaded guilty to involves a gross breach of trust, and that it was not excusable in anyway, because you were iu the receipt of ample means of subsistence without this money, I am bound to award such a punishment as in my descretion is a measure of the offence as nearly as I can apportion it. I shall certainly give consideration to the recommendation to mercy of Air Cook, the prosecutor—rather compulsory prosecutor I wish to state he has acted kindly and benevolently towards you in urging it upon the Court, 1 certainly should, iu the absence of it, have given a longer punishment than I shall, to mark my sense of the enormity of the crime you have committed. The sentence of the Court is that ysu bo imprisoned for three years.-the lowest period the law allows. The indictments for forgery were read, but no evidence being offered, the jury by direction returned a verdict of “not guilty.” William Gray, who was yesterday found guilty of forgery at Palmerston, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, his Honor remarking that even if the jury had not made a recommendation to mercy, he would have considered in his favor the circumstance of his having evinced some signs of penitence by returning the money the same afternoon that he obtained it.