A SERIOUS CHARGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5835, 11 December 1879, Page 3

A SERIOUS CHARGE.

Many Victorians in New Zealand will remember Mr. Henry Oscar Ohriatopherson, late Director of Waterworks at Hobarton, Tasmania. Mr. Ohriatopherson had formerly been in the service of the Victorian Government, and was one of the numerous victims of “Black Thursday.” From our Hobarton files to hand a week ago wo have received the painful intelligence that Mr. Ohriatopherson has been convicted of larceny, and has received a sentence for the offence. The following partiaulars are from the Mercury of the 27th November: —“Henry Oscar Christopheraon was brought up on remand at the Police Court yesterday, charged with, while in the employ of the City Corporation in April last, stealing one barometer, value £3, and one boob on waterworks, value £7, the property of the Mayor, aldermen, and citizens of Hobarton. Detective Connor obtained leave to withdraw the original information, and substitute one charging Christopherson with stealing a book on waterworks, value £7, the property of the City Corporation. The defendant elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded guilty. Mr. Sargent, who appeared for the prisoner, said the accused had pleaded guilty, and desired to throw himself upon the mercy of the Court. He had held rather high positions in Victoria, but unfortunately lost his last appointment. When he arrived in Hobarton from Melbourne he owed a considerable sum of money, and being pursued by money lenders he was compelled to resort to the stealing of that hook. He (Mr. Sargent) would put in printed testimonials as to the character hitherto borne by the prisoner, and he had no doubt that his Worship the Mayor would testify to the character of the prisoner, aud ask for the lenient consideration of the Bench. Mr. Christopherson had a wife and two daughters, and he (Mr. Sargent) trusted that a very light sentence would be meted out to the prisoner. The Mayor said it was not the wish of the Corporation to have a severe sentence imposed; in fact, they desired otherwise. They felt it to bo their duty to take proceedings in that case ; and as Mr. Christopherson had pleaded guilty they trusted the magistrates would deal with him in a lenient way. The Police Magistrate said of course the Bench were always inclined to listen to appeals for mercy. At the same time they had their duty to do to society, and it was impossible for them to put aside considerations which presented themselves to the minds of the magistrates with regard to the present case. Instead of the prisoner being an ignorant man he was a man of education—a man who had been well brought up—and therefore he was not like a poor ignorant man who might he excused somewhat for the commission of crime. At the time the prisoner stole that book he was in the possession of a fair remuneration for his services, aud he ought not to have had any want to plead. Furthermore, the Bench could not ignore the fact that the example he had set to a large number of employes was an exceedingly bad one, and such that, if it were treated with too much leniency, might lead to further crime. The Bench were compelled, therefore, in the discharge of their duty, to sentence the prisoner to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labor.”