DASH FOR LIBERTY

Hokitika Guardian, 26 April 1932, Page 3

DASH FOR LIBERTY

DIAMOND- DEALER’S- OFFENCE. A fine of £2OO with the ’ alternative of nine months’ imprisonment-without hard labour was imposed by Mr Justice 1 Marti/, at Johannesburg sessions on February 8, on Samuel De Lange, a diamond dealer, who pleaded guilty m buying 271 uncut diamonds from rns-t-edtivo J. D. Malan. Counsel for defendant, ‘ in pleaair.g for leniency, said that De Lange was trapped into buying a parcel of 271 diamonds in the Jeppe Arcade. They were valued at £14,000, and accoro ing to De Lange- this was a conservative estimate. De Lange was in veigled into buying the diamonds by two people, one, of whom, Milan, was admittedly a police trap, and tire other owned an office in the arcade. They were the only people who witnessed the. transaction, which took place in a room. De Lange paid £990 in cash to Malan and made out a cheque (which wals stopped) for £IOOO, payable next day. De Lange received the parcel of diamonds, a-nd as be emerged from the room he saw police officers closing on him. He realised that the transaction was a trap, and being a sportsman, made a dash for liberty. He t-oissed the parcel of diamonds through the back window of a car in the ’street ifnd made off. When he was arrested the diamonds were not found in his

possession. Defendant wavs- taken to the office of the diamond department and informed that the parcel was- a' Government parcel of great value,) and if he co-operated in their recovery everything would be done to have his assist-: ance held in mitigation of the offence. De Lange decided not to endeavour to take advantage of the unsuccessful ruse to get rid of the diamonds, but to return them and throw himself on the merc-y of the court.

OFFER OF £14,000 FOR £3,000. Counsel: Had it not been for accused’s co operation the diamonds would never have been found. The police owe it to him that the valuable parcel of diamonds has been recovered. The parcel broke, continued counsel, when De Lang© tossed it into the car, and some of the diamonds, were missing. The police subsequently iucovered three—two 50 carats, worth £250, were still missing. The police were satisfied however, that De Lange had (lone all in his power to ,return the diamonds. It had been a profitable transaction for the Government, which had made £750. De Lange, said counsel, was fiftyfour years of age and had a wife and child. He came to South Africa from Holland forty years ago. He had served with the forces oly t-he -south '.trican Republic throughout the Boer War, and when war broke out. in 1914 he went to German Ealst Africa,, where he was seriously wounded,. nns was today receiving a pension from the Government on account of thatdisablement. De Lange had a ..clean, record and had never previously had trouble with the police. Counsel asked the judge to consider the extremely great temptation placed before De Lange. He was offered £1 1,000 for £3,000, and one 'could sympathise with him if he fell t-o the temptation. Then there wats; the fact that the police- had refused to give hack De Lange’s £990. De Lange had also lost his diamond dealer’s license, and the police were not prepared to recommend a- renewal. The maximum fine for the offence was £IOOO and Do Lange had already virtually paid this. Counsel for tho prosecution said he agreed that there were feature!? in the case that lifted it- out of the ordinary rut. De Lange had been frank and had assisted the police. He would not wish for a fine beyond De Lange’s powers to pay to be imposed. Mr Justice Maritz said that the chief point in De-Lange’s favour, was that he helped the police to recover the diamondis, which would otherwise have been lost to the State. “In view of your record,” continued the judge, “it hurts anyone to see you, in - the position you are in to-day. It hurts me. particularly to have the hard task of sefitencing you.” The diamond trade, the judge remarked, was one of the biggest enterprises in the country, and unless jdt was strictly controlled chaos wonlddj-l#-i,sult. The fine imposed could not be inadequate to the enormity of tile offence.