CRIMINAL SESSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8351, 11 February 1913, Page 10

CRIMINAL SESSION

THREE YOUTHS SENTENCED. TWO ADMITTED TO PROBATION. Walter Krausch and Seddon Reid, who had been found guilty of breaking, entering, and theft from a Chinaman’s shop, and James O’Neill, who had pleaded guilty to three similar indictments, appeared before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman for sentence. Mr Wilford appeared for O’Neill, Mr Samuel for Krausch, and Mr Meredith for Reid. His Honor, addressing Krausch, said that though he was a very young man he had shown himself to be a criminal. He got these other .young fellows to go into the robbery with him, and he (his Honor) was quite sure Krausch was the one who began and planned the whole robbery at the Chinamen’s house. Ho did not think In the circumstances that he could let Krausch free. Accused would be sen.tenced to two . years’ reformatory treatment, and his Honor recommended that this be carried out at Invercargill. ' . As to O’Neill, his Honor said he had very great difficulty in dealing with this case. It was found necessary some years ago to treat these crimes committed by so-called boys, precocious boys, in some way, and some of tho boys were sent to prison much against the wish of the judges; but there were so many cases that it was absolutely necessary. AVhat he had to consider in this case was what was best for O’Neill, and also best in the interests of the community. After a great deal of hesitation ho found lie could fulfil his duty by admitting him to probation, though the conditions would be severe. He would be admitted to probation, and in a great measure O’Neill had to thank the police for this, especially Detective-Sergeant Cassells, who had com© forward and given him (his Honor) substantial assistance in his endeavour to do the best he could for the prisoner. He would be admitted to probation for the full period of three years. If he misbehaved he would be brought before court. He would be ordered to pay XOs a month to compensate the Chinamen who had been robbed. It was only fair ho should do something to make up the loss. The first payment would have "to be made on March Ist i»nd. the last payment would have to be sufficient to make the total up to !£lB. It was said he received £lO, but ■this was not the measure of the burden he (his Honor) put_ on _ him. O’Neill took a full share in this robbery, and he would have to pay back a share of the loss of these men. In ordinary circumstances he would have imposed the cost of the prosecution, but in this case he thought it better that whatever they had to pay should go towards compensating the Chlnamen. Regarding Reid, his Honor said that he intended to make the conditions somewhat similar. He recognised' that he would be in the position of an apprentice and would not have the same opportunity of earning money as O’Neill had. Secondly, the conditions would he less severe at the outset than in O’Neill’s case. He would be admitted to probation for three years. During the first eight months of the period he would have to pay 2s fid a month, commencing on March Ist. During the next sixteen months he would have to pay ss, a month, and during the remainder of the period 10s a month. The last payment would have to bring the total up to £ll- - the whole of this period lie would have to bear that burden by way of compensating the men who had been robbed of their savings. He now expected Reid to go back to his father, and for such reasons as were disclosed in the case ho would have to be at home at 8 o’clock every evening unless the Probation Officer thought fit to allow, him leave to be out later.