MARTIN SENTENCED.

Hokitika Guardian, 27 February 1924, Page 4

MARTIN SENTENCED.

JUDGE’S COMMENT. CHRISTCHURCH. 1-Vh. 2b. At the Supreme Court, yesterday. Mr .1 list ice Adams sentenced Russell Dytcs Martin to 12 months’ imprisonment for the theft of sums totalling £355 IN 3d from the Cantorhiirv Bakers’ and Pastry cooks’ Union. Mi W. J. fliuiter appeared on behalf of the prisoner. Mr Hunter, for Marlin, stated flint

the prisoner was 43 years n! age. v. as married, and bad a* daughter aged I-* years. With the exception of an income- of £1 a week which Imd hoen left tiis wife by her mother, Martin was the sole support of both Ins wile and child. The prisoner had got into tumble through muddling, and had subsequently made restitution—a fa-.-t which was always considered m the mitigation of punishment. Already the prisoner had been heavily punished. lie had resigned the secretaryship of the Bilkers’ Union, and would probably he forced to adopt a- similar course with

the Simp Assistants’ Union, and Horn the circumstances it appeared that ike

prisoner’s career as a trades union so-■-ret ary had definitely terminated. Martin was a teetotaller, and did not

gamble, and it was dillicult to see vv 1 ere the moneys had gone. Ihe cir-

cumstances were such that it appeared that t-e prisoner had not deliberately taken the money which lie knee did not belong to him, but that it was rather due to lii.s neglect of the iinancia 1 work of tile unions concerned. His Honour: How. then, do you explain the use of Mr Gray’s and other auditors’ names on the balaneo-shoels and the prisoner's failure to call meetings? Those are the difficulties in the

iv of vour contentions. Mi Hunter: -’There are two \it

as to that. The first is that the pro-on-er knew he had stolen the money and u -i> bed to hide il as long a he cool E But there was another view—-Martin own statement. Marlin said that he I ad become muddled in his accounts, and had delayed the lack; being noised abroad as long as possible. At all event:-, lie Imd not -been convicted with regard to the use of the auditors’ names.” The i.Tobntion Officer, said Mr Hunter, recommended probation, and gave the accused an excellent cluivai ter. Mr Hunter asked that probation be granted to the prisoner. The trial had done a great deal ol good and peir-ted out the weakness of the system under which the business of the unions had been carried on. A remedy wrs provided in tho Art of 1920, and it would he the fault of the unions themselves if their hooks were not properly, kept

Thomas Foe, retired Methodise niiiiister, said he had known the prisoner Tor a period of seven years, and had always held him to he a man of truth and integrity. .Mi A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosoru-l--r, said the fact that the prisoner had home a good reputation had not heen questioned. He had done some valuable work for his Unions, apart from the financial aspect. However, there was a serious aspect of the case- the falsification of the balance-sheets and the misappropriation of the funds of the Bakers’ Union. His Honour, in sentencing the aei used, stated that such eases as the .present had and always would be very difficult to deal with. No judge could regard it as a light matter to subject a prisoner to the penalty of imprisonment. On the other hand, the duty of judges iu siieh eases, it appeared to him, was quite elear. The* prisoner, stated his Honour, had lieoii given a very careful trial, and had heen convicted on the unanimous verdict of the jury. In his Honour’s opinion the jmy could not have come to any other conclusion than that which was actually arrived at. The circumstances which h ; s Honour had to consider were not mdy those where the prisoner had got into difficulties with the Union accounts, hut the fact that, in Juno, 11U-. when the circumstances had Income known to the prisoner, he should have called the respective Unions together and made a clean breast of the thing. In all probability had that. l<Pen dope, and considering the high esteem in which Martin had been held, the difficulties would have been surmounted. The prisoner, on the other hand, had not done this, but had embarked on a definite system of fraud to conceal his delalcations. In other words, after he had become aware of what was happening, lie had continued to take the moneys of the Union. By using fraudulent balance-sheets the. prisoner had made it reasonably safe to continue rod, as a matter of fact, had continued lor a period of more than a year. During that time a substantial portion of the funds of the Bakers’ Union had I disappeared- His Honour continued that ho would not take into consideration any allegation that the prisoner 1 i-aii dealt dishonestly with the fund* j of any other Union, because the evidence did not establish this. At the j same time he would have to consider j the fact that- the prisoner, while in the employ of bodies of working men who were unaccustomed to financial matters, and who knew nothing of balancesheets, took advantage of such a position to falsify the accounts and so carry on. Tn view of these facts, said His Honour, he could not do other than impose a term of imprisonment, and would sentence the accused to twelve months’ imprisonment. j