DISHONEST LAND AGENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 November 1921, Page 2

DISHONEST LAND AGENT.

MANY PEOPLE RUINED. SENTENCE OF FOUR YEARS. Christchurch, Oct. 31. *‘l would be failing in my duty to the public if I did not impose a sentence which would mark the prisoner’s conduct as a serious offence,” said Mr. Justice Adams in ' the Supreme Court to-day in sentencing William Allan Hopkins, land agent, to four years’ imprisonment with hard labor oft four charges—two of theft and two of failing to account. Mr. F. W. Johnston, counsel for the defence, said that when Hopkins first took the money he had really no intent to deprive anyone. At the time he filed as a bankrupt his health was such that he had surrendered to the authorities at Sunnyside Mental Hospital. He was a voluntary patient at this institution for three months. Subsequently he went to Wellington, where he stayed with relatives. Prisoner was 63 years of age, and had been aged ,in appearance by his troubles. In a recent case in the North Island probation had been extended to a civil servant who had been guilty of systematic thefts from the Government. Counsel asked for a similar apt of clemency.

. “It is true prisoner is an old man, and in a bad state of health, but I regret to say neither in actual . offences nor in his business system is there anything to urge in mitigation,” said Mr. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor. Prisoner’s bankrupt estate would probably realise 6s to 7s in the .€l, according to the statement of the Official Assignee. The total defalcation amounted to £22,000. A large number of the people affected were in poor circumstances, and were old men and women. The difficulties faced, by the accused were not so much to his persistently dishonest temperament. . Prisoner’s books were kept in such a way as not to disclose his true position. A large number of persons had been riiined by Hopkins. Mr. Johnston pointed out that several persons concerned were hard-headed business men. Mr. Donnelly replied that there were several such instances, but his remarks were intended to be general. The defalcations extended, as far v as was known, over the past ten years. His Honor said it was a painful case, but the circumstances brought forward by the defence did not in any way mitigate the seriousness of ttye crime. Approximately £20,000 had been taken from persons who could ill afford the loss. 9 His Honor added that he was not going to take into consideration the question of prisoner’s health; that was a matter for the Prisons Board. What he had to deal with was the question of a man in business, apparently of good reputation, who by this reputation had been able to obtain money from persons unable to bear the losses. Prisoner was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with hard labor on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.