Eighteen Months’Hard Labour for Abduction

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 732, 3 August 1929, Page 6

Eighteen Months’Hard Labour for Abduction

TANFIELD GUILTY MARRIED MAN’S OFFENCE “You not only abducted the girl, | but you concealed her with relatives for a month. The offence cannot j be passed over lightly.” | 'J'HESE comments were addressed i b y Mr. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court this morning to Raymond Claude Tanfield, a taxidriver, aged 20, who was sentenced to IS months’ hard labour for abduction and carnal knowledge of a 15-year-old girl. A plea for leniency was made on Tanfield’s behalf by Mr. Schramm. Tanfield, though a married man, had met and become infatuated with the young girl, he said. At the time he had divorce proceedings pending against his wife in JTamilton, of which he had informed the girl. Had it not been for the present prosecution he would have been granted a decr€:e nisi at the last session. He had then intended marrying the girl. Tanfield’s wife had left him on three occasions and each time he had taken her back, and when she had proved a failure, he had started to slip back. Since then he had not been leading the best life and had got into trouble. Counsel appealed to the Court to | admit Tanfield to probation, saying I that prisoner’s father was prepared to employ him in a boardinghouse as a cook, where he could be supervised by his parents, and by the police. Counsel also directed the attention to the jury’s recommendation to mercy. “Your case is very different from that of a young man named Davis, who is to be sentenced for an offence against tbe same girl,” his Honour remarked in passing sentence. “Davis was 21 and single, and might well have thought the girl was 17, for she looked it,” his Honour said. “When Davis ascertained the girl’s condition he took the responsibility and offered to marry her. You are married, and 2<5 years of age. You had no business making advances to this girl and there is no excuse for you. If your intentions had been honourable toward the girl you would have waited until you obtained your divorce. You were clearly warned by her parents, and knew the girl was only 15. The interests of justice demand that the offence should be punished with imprisonment,” said his Honour. He added that he had taken into consideration the jury’s recommendation to mercy, in fixing the sentence. *