AMY BOCK SENTENCED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 458, 29 May 1909, Page 3

AMY BOCK SENTENCED.

TWO YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT. DECLARED AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL. Dunedin, Thursday. Amy Bock, whose arrest led to sensational developments last month, came up iiefore the Supreme Court today for sentence on charges of forgery, uttering, and two charges of false pretences, also a charge of making a false statement under the Marriage Act of 1908. . At the outset, Mr Moore, who appeared tor accused, said she wished to draw attention to statements published in the daily press. Many papers in the Dominion had published statements ( in regard to accused which should'not have been published until after she was found guilty. . His Honour: “Supposing I have not read any of the publications complained of? If Mr Moore thought the papers had committed contempt of Court he could take proceedings against them.” His Honour added tint he could not recall anything in particular of the nature complained ot.. He did not know what was published, and for the present purpose it was not necessary that he should know.

• Mr Moore then proceeded to deal with accused’s past history. She gave her age as 47, and was just able to remember her mother before the latter was taken to an asylum. The mother died in a mental asylum in Australia. Accused was brought up in a ladies’ boarding-school in Mel" bourne and while she was there her father lost a considerable sum of money, necessitating her returning home, Then she studied for a teacher and got a license when 13 or 14 years of age. AVithin a year or so, counsel understood, she was convicted and discharged tor false pretences in Australia. She then came to New Zealand. Dealing with the case in which accused forged Roy’s name to a receipt, cennsel said that while in town accused met a woman who knew her past and had been kind to her in the past, but who at that particular moment was very hard up. This woman demanded from her £ 2O, stating that if she did not receive money she would go to Roy and expose accused’s past and gather dismissed. Accused tried to put her off, but was unsuccessful, and committed the forgery and obtained the money under a bill of sale from Mr Ellis. Either one or two days after she receiv'd the money she wrote to Ellis telling him she had committed a crime, that the receipt was a forgery, and that she intended to meet him. She got alraid that she would be rim in by the police ; she did her best to evade the police, and evading them led to ether crimes. . From accused’s past there was a possibility, if not a probability, that she was not responsible for her actions, and he would ask the Court to have her examined by menial experts as to the condition of her mind, Dr. de Latour, who was for many years one of the examiners in medical jurisprudence, would say that the facts were such as disposed him to make a prinia facie case that accused was not responsible for her action. Accused was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and declared an habitual criminal.