FOUR MONTHS' GAOL

Evening Star, Issue 21746, 14 June 1934, Page 11

FOUR MONTHS' GAOL

POSTMAN INTERFERES WITH LETTER ' PUBLIC CONFIDENCE MUST BE PRESERVED. SAYS JUDGE “ Those who have access to the mails must be trusted, and public confidence in the secrecy and proper delivery of the mails must be preserved,” said His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy, in the Supreme Court this morning, in sentencing Thomas William M'Alpino to four months’ imprisonment ona charge of, contrary to his duty, opening a letter. Mr P. S, Anderson, who appeared for M‘Alpine, said that at the time of the offence the prisoner was employed as a postman. The depositions showed that, prior to commencing his delivery of letters, he picked up letters from a case containing letters for delivery by another postman, opened one letter which was lightly sealed, and resealed it without disturbing the contents of the letter. There was no charge of dishonesty, against the prisoner, and no dishonesty had been proved, it had been stated in evidence that M‘Alpine had a good name for honesty, and that his reports to the department had been quite satisfactory. Counsel submitted that it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that-the prisoner’s action was an innocent one, although admittedly extremely foolish. He had been employed by the department since 1921, and was a married man with a wife and five children. He had already been severely punished by the loss of his employment. Prisoner went to the war with the Main Body, served for five years, and since his return had been.subject to neurasthenia. Counsel suggested that in view, of the prisoner’s previous good character he might be granted probation if His Honour thought such a course was in the interests of justice. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) said that while ho did not wish to oppose the suggestion that probation might bo granted, he felt called upon to comment upon the statement that dishonesty had not been proved. It was quite correct, that there was no money in the letter tampered with by the prisoner, but the motive seemed sufficiently clear without the taking of money. It was submitted that the inference was so plain that the court could take no other view of the matter. The correspondence of the ‘ Tablet ’ Company had been subject to interference since February, 1933, and the prisoner was seen opening a letter addressed to the people whose correspondence had been habitually interfered with. The prisoner said in his statement that he opened the letter, found nothing of va.lue in it, and resealed it. It was obvious on his own»'statement that he opened the letter with tho intention of stealing anything of value in it. His Honour said the offence wa« admitted, and the evidence recorded showed that it was not a mere dereliction of duty without any sinister purpose. The purpose of the prisoner, His Honour was confidently satisfied, was an evil and improper one, and the circumstances pointed strongly to the improbability of the offence standing alone. There was undoubtedly tha improper handling of correspondence with which the prisoner had no honest concern. Those who, had access to the mails must be trusted, and pubho confidence in the secrecy and proper delivery of the mails must be preserved, It was for those reasons "that His Honour proposed to impose a sentence of imprisonment. The sentence of ' the c6urt was that tha prisoner be imprisoned for four months with hard labour. X-