TWO YEARS FOR THEFT.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 May 1916, Page 8

TWO YEARS FOR THEFT.

JUDGE'S COMMENT ON PLEA FOR LENIENCY. Christ church, May !). In tlie Supreme Court to-day, William Francis Bert Dunn pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with theft from the City Council of £942 on April 4th last. Mr. Cassidy, for the prisoner, stated that some six months ago he became involved in betting transactions, and tried to meet them by misappropriating the City Council's money. Dunn had enlisted, and counsel asked'that Dunn be dealt with in the same manner that Mr. Justice Denniston had dealt with the Farrow case. Mr. Sitn: Was not complete restitution made in that case? Counsel: Partly, your Honor, "What was the amount involved?" Counsel: A large sum of money. Continuing, counsel stated that Dunn's offence did not show a depraved mind or criminal disposition. Mr. Raymond said the report as to character was that, up to the time of the offence, the prisoner was a respectable man. It was stated by the City Council authorities that the money was taken at one time. When arrested accused only had £7B, and, referring to cases cited, Mr. Raymond said that in respect to the Farrow case, he believed restitution of almost all the amount had been made. Farrow had not cleared out as Dunn did. The fact that Dunn was arrested in Auckland did not indicate that he was goinjr into camp. Mr. Cassidy stated that Dunn was accepted by the Defence authorities in October, 1915. The reason lie did not go into camp was that lie was endeavouring to get his money matters straightened o\it. His Honor said that if he were to treat the present case like Farrow's lie would be saying pratically that a man occupying a position of trust may steal over £9OO of his employer's money and attempt to clear out. of tlie, country, and when captured and brought back that he could escape punishment by enlisting. His Honor was certainly not going to treat the decision in Farrow's ease as applicable to the present one, which was altogether different. If he were to treat it like Farrow's, he would be, instead of administering the law, making smooth the path of the transgressor. He declined to do anything of the sort. Prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.