SAFE-BLOWER GAOLED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 330, 16 April 1928, Page 11

SAFE-BLOWER GAOLED

JUDGE’S SERIOUS VIEW SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE The series of safe-blowing episodes which troubled the police of the Whakatane district for some time came to an end in the Supreme Court this morning, when three of the men concerned appeared before Mr. Justice Blair for sentence. Charles Barclay Dewar pleaded guilty to four charges of breaking, entering and theft. Speaking on behalf of the prisoner. Mr. Sullivan said that on the face of it the case appeared to be a bad one. The use of explosives was looked upon as a grave offence, but there were certain circumstances that could be taken in mitigation of the offence. Dewar was 53 years of age, and had never been in trouble before. He had used explosives all his life, and had never before done so illegally. For eight years his -wife had been an inmate of an asylum, and escaped some time ago. This had worried him, and he had been out of work. Some friends of his had supplied him with drink and this had affected him. “It is an undoubted fact,” said his Honour, “that the charges against you, Dewar, are of a most serious nature. The work you accomplished was done with a considerable amount of skill, and the case cannot be met otherwise than by a substantial punishment. You will be sentenced to I two years’ imprisonment with hard | labour, to be followed by two years’ j reformative detention, on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.” PROBATION FOR ACCOMPLICES

James William Shaw, who had pleaded guilty to three charges of breaking, entering and theft, and Alexander Lawson Andrew, to receiving stolen property, in connection with Dewar’s crimes, were then called. On behalf of Andrew, Mr. Goldstinc stated that his offence was that of receiving £6. He had befriended Shaw when the latter was penniless, and had lent him £6. On the night of the burglary at the Farmers’ Trading Company’s offices at Whakatane Andrew was told, but he did not inform the police. The next day Shaw came to him and paid him the £6. He was no doubt guilty of a technical breach, but counsel asked for lenient treatment. Mr. Fleming, for Shaw, urged that his client had come under the influence of Dewar. Shaw was only 20 years old, and. had fallen into temptation. It was an escapade of youth that was not likely to be repeated. His Honour said there were many mitigating circumstances in both cases. The two men had made no trouble with the police, and in fact, had assisted all they could, to clear up the affair. They were both admitted to probation for two years, on the conditions that they paid the costs of the prosecution and took out prohibition orders.