THE CONVICT CUMMOCK.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1704, 6 August 1879, Page 2

THE CONVICT CUMMOCK.

On the jury returning into Court at the trial of Cummock for larceny and arson at Dunedin, the following colloquy took place, according to the report of tho “Herald”;—The Foreman —We find him guilty, but recommend him to mercy. His Honor On what ground P The Foreman—On tho ground ot his youth and

bodily infirmity. His Honor —Now theie has been no evidence to show bodily infirmity. I am not aware of any. There is no Judge that ever sat on the Bench who is more anxious to take a recommends'ion for mercy into consideration than myself. Nothing pleases mo more than to see a good reason for a Hcht sentence, hut why bodily infirmity should be a justification to commit a crime like this I cannot see. Mr Haggitt— I am informed by Mr Mallard that the prisoner has his right hand paralysed. His Honor —X don’t sec how that can affect it. What is his age? The Prisoner—l was twenty-one two months ago. His Honor — And a married man, I believe. The Prisoner —Yes. His Honor —I wish I could see some other ground for the recommendation to mercy. Here is a married man, twenty-one years of age, who robs the Athenamm, and sets fire to the building in order to destroy the proofs of his guilt. He is recommended to mercy because he has a bad hand and is twenty-one years of age. (To Mr Hawkins) Can you produce any kind of evidence as any explanation of this most tremendous crime, for it is a terrible crime ? Mr Hawkins —He denies it in toto. His Honor—Of course ; but the jury have very consistently found him guilty, and I quite agree with the verdict of the jury. I ask any person consistently with the evidence to give me an excuse. Mr Hawkins—ln tho face of the fact that &€ assures me that he is innocent, I can see no excuse. His Honor—But is there no evidence to show that the man has fallen through some sore temptation or something of that sort. I should only be too glad to find an excuse that would ba justifiable. (To Mr Haggitt) —Have you any evi.i ence from the police of this man’s antecedents ? Mr Haggitt—Yes, your Honor. The prisoner appears to have been convicted of forgery and uttering in Christchurch on the 4th of October, 1875, for which he received six months’ imprison’ ment with hard labor. The prisoner has admitted to Datcctive Henderson that he is the same person. His Honor —Good gracious; only six months! Could he have been heard before me ? It is very rarely, except under the most exceptional circumstances, that I inflict such light penalties for such serious offences. Mr Haggitt —1 think it must have been before your Honor. H;s Honor However, I will give him an opportunity of denying that if he likes. Mr Hawkins—He doesn’t deny that. He was very young at tho time. His Honor (to the jury) —You see he is a forger, and the moment ho gets into a place of trust he robs his master and then sets fire to the premises. Perhaps if you had known that, you would not have been so very anxious to recommend him to mercy.