THE SLIGHTS SENTENCED.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1922, Page 6

THE SLIGHTS SENTENCED.

EIGHTEEN MONTHS’ REFORMATIVE DETENTION. PLEAD GUILTY TO SECOND CHARGE. Vv hen a second charge of a breach of tne Chattels Transfer Act was preferred against James Richard Slight and Charlefi Arnold Slight at the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday a plea of guilty was entered. The accused were convicted last Friday on a cnarge of having received a stolen bull and cow, well knowing them to have -been stolen, and the second charge arose out of their action in removing from their farm a number of cows and two bulls, which were included in the security taken by the Crown by way of a bill of sale to cover advances made to them under the discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act. In making a plea on behalf of the accused, Mr. F. C. Spratt said that he had taken upon bimself the responsibility of advising the accused to plead guilty to the second charge and he wished briefly to address the Court on the question of sentence. Unfortunately, some five or six years ago, when he was between the ages of 19 and 20, Charles Arnold had been convicted for receiving stolen cattle. He was then indicted with another man. wno was much 'older than himself and who was then his employer. They were not represented by counsel, and n<> pecuniary gain from those cattle had come to Slight. While he was found guilty, it may -be that he was very cpueii under the influence of the older man.

His- Honor: I do not attach a great deal of .importance to that offence. But what ITlo uake notice of is the fact that ne was before this Court, lie was convicted and sentenced, and he has not appreciated the warning given him. That is the significance I attach to the previous- case. SUCCUMBED qxFTEMPTATION. / Continuing, Mr./Spratt said that after -is sentence had been passed Slight had joim-d the Expeditionary Force. He would not have been eligible beiore then. His military record was good, and it was not ms fault that he had not been able to get into the firing line. At that time Charles Arnold was not living with his brother. On their return to New Zealand they were assisted on to the farm by the Repatriation Department. With them was their father, who was 63 years of age and unable to do a great deal of work, tneir mother, and a younger brother, and the two accused were supporting them. For two years the boys were on the place, and no complaint was made against them until latterly, when owing to being unable to run the place owing to high costs and the rent they had to pay, they found it necessary to move or be sold up. Right up to the time when they were sold up they expected to be moved to another place, 'ine accused denied that they had stolen Corrigan’s bull and cow, and the point counsel wished to make wa« that the original obtaining of the cattle was an innocent From the evidence of Poole it was apparent that there was no | attempt at concealment in the first in* 1 stance on the part of the men, -but when 1 they knew that they were to go off the farm, that they were to be sold up, and * that they were to get nothing out of it, I they succumbed to temptation and acted in a way they should not have done.

Regarding the second charge, and considering the evidence concerning the cattle driven to Powell’s, it would have hopeless for him to have contended that they were not guilty of a breach of tiie Chattels’ Transfer Act in respect to those cattle. The accused now said that they had intended to allow their father and mother to nave these cows on a few acres while they went to work elsewhere. They said they left on the farm as many animals as were included in the bill of sale, and while, of course, any lawyer would have told them that all increases in the stock etc., automatically came in as part of the security, yet, said Mr. Spratt, that was not obvious to the lay mind.

He concluded his address by saying that James Richard had not been previously convicted and there was nothing to Show that he was confirmed in any habit of bad living. AU the beasts had -been restored -and he asked His Honor if the accused could not -be dealt with in ■some other way than by a term of imprisonment. HIS HONOR’S REMARKS. In passing sentence. His Honor said that he had carefully considered what should be done with the accused, and had listened carefully to what Mr. Spratt liadjiad to say, but he was unable to accept his explanation of all the matters which had been put before the Court. “Incidentally,” said His Honor, addressj ing the prisoners, “I think you are -very i much indebted to your counsel for the i way in which he has conducted your defence, and, presumably, for advising you not to go into the witness box and to plead guilty to the second charge.” The accused’s conduct compelled him to discard altogether the idea of probation, His Honor went on. He had come to the conclusion that it was a case in which he should order a term of imprisonment with hard labour, but he had decided to award a period of reformative detention as-,, in the future, such a sentence would not attach so much stigma to the accused. Both accused were sentenced to 18 months’ detention for reformative treatment on the charge of receiving the stolen cattle, and 6 months’ reformative detention for the breach of the Chattels’ Transfer Act, the sentences to be concurrent.