Judge’s Warning

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 313, 26 March 1928, Page 11

Judge’s Warning

‘POSTAL REGULATIONS ARE SACRED” A WIFE’S CORRESPONDENCE in this case it will te quite a proper procedure if I order the suppression of the names of both the prisoners, and I accordingly do so,” said Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court this morning when, convicting and discharging a woman and admitting her companion, a man, to probation for 12 months on a charge of forgery. Mr. R. A: Singer, who appeared for both prisoners, stated that the offence waa a purely venial one. The man was visiting a seaside place, and, in order to receive certain money which arrived from Sydney from his sister, and which belonged to him, he persuaded the woman to sign a re-direc-tion order purporting to be his wife’s signature. He received two letters, one of which contained his money, and the other addressed to his wife, with whom he had had a domestic difference. It was a foolish thing to do, said counsel, but the woman did not handle the letters in any way. The man only endeavoured to obtain what was his own, and although he went about it in an entirely wrong manner, there was nothing really criminal about it. Counsel pleaded that they be not sent to gaol, and asked for the suppression of the names, as the man had a good position which he would lose if his name were published. It was not a case where public interest would be served by the publication of the names. Mr. V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, objected that the case was not a venial one, and pointed out that any interference with the postal regulations was a serious offence. His Honour, in convicting and discharging the woman, said that she only signed the order to help her friend, and with no idea of personal gain. She had suffered a great deal of mental anguish. As far as the man was concerned, his Honour said he could not agree that the offence was a venial one. Where anyone Interfered with the sanctity of the postal regulations It was a grave thing. It was only by an accident that the letter addressed V the prisoner’s wife was really one from a mutual friend. It was more an action of thoughtlessness, and in the circumstances he would be admitted to probation for 12 months.