H. S. IZARD.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8349, 4 February 1907, Page 5

H. S. IZARD.

SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. COMMENTS BY MR JUSTICE COOPER. Henry Stratton Izard, who pleaded guilty at Masterton two weeks ago to three charges of misappropriation of trust moneys amounting to £18,812 and breaches of trust, came up for sentence before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper at the Wellington Supreme Court on Saturday. A good deal of interest was taken in the case, the court being crowded with spectators, amongst whom were several Maoris. Mr Skerrett, counsel for prisoner, addressed the court, saying that prisoner stood in the dock because he had failed in his duty as trustee and had committed offences against the laws of the country. He was there to receive whatever punishment his Honor might in his just discretion think proper to award. There were many circumstances that told in favour of the prisoner. Before his affairs became matter of enquiry prisoner could easily have escaped punishment by fleeing from the country, but he had remained to face the consequences and take such punishment as was deemed fitting for his crime. So far from placing difficulties in the way of those making the investigation, he gave the prosecution every facility he could; he had helped by every means in his power to the investigation of his affairs. Mr Skerrett submitted that this consideration should have a sensible influence on the learned judge in passing sentence on the prisoner, and counsel believed it was an influence that his Honor should not ignore. If such an influence was not allowed to weigh, every reason for a person to assist investigation of his affairs in such a case as the present would be removed, and as a result much trouble would be incurred that might be avoided. In respect to.the Trust in which the chief defalcations had occurred, it was a fact that the Trust had its origin in the skill and care and energy of the prisoner at the bar. The rights of the beneficiaries had been ignored, and but for the prisoner's care and insistence they would have been ignored at the present date. He had established the rights of the beneficiaries to certain lands which had greatly benefited the estate, and counsel felt justified in mentioning this, although he was aware that it was no justification for the offence committed. There had been endeavours made to remedy the wrongs done. Prisoner's wife had set apart a substantial part of her private, personal income to help those who had suffered by the acts of the prisoner; both prisoner and his wife had done everything they could, and prisoner had expressed his sincere regret for the folly he had committed. The punishment that would be inflicted by his Honor would be only a part of what prisoner had to suffer. To a man who made a habit of crime the imprisonment might be the only thing regarded, but the prisoner was acutely sensible of his present position, and of the social and substantial loss he had sustained; the loss of influence, of his congenial suroundings, and the termination of his career. These deprivations meant a a great deal. Amongst other things it meant the, loss of friends, and he would come out of prison to start life at the bottom of the ladder. \ Whatever punishment the court might pass would be little, counsel felt sure, by comparison with the anguish that«, the prisoner would feel, and counsel hoped that his Honor, having regard to this, would be lenient in passing sentence. If anything that counsel had said inclined his Honor to leniency counsel hoped that it would be exercised, in the knowledge that in such a case leniency was never misplaced. Mr Myers, who represented the Crown, said he had applied to the Official Assignee for full information, and had received the evidence taken in connection with the bankruptcy. His Honor, after 1 reading these documents, said: This is a very extraordinary, a very painful case. Prisoner, you belonged to an honourable profession and have taken advantage of your position as solicitor, and also as trustee in certain estates, and have converted, fraudulently converted, to your own use very large sums of money. It is impossible that I can allow a case like this to pass without a severe sentence. I shall take into consideration the. circumstances which have been mentioned by Mr Skerrett. When the consequences of your defalcations became apparent you did not leave the colony, and you have, as far as I can judge, given what information was within your power in reference to the position of the estates which were entrusted to you, and also to some qxtent your wife has proposed some form of restitution. But I have, a duty to perform, and a very painful duty indeed. It is true that the rtsult of this case will destroy your professional career; you cannot thereafter be allowed to practise as a solicitor. It is true also that your future will be very much affected, but that is the consequence of your own acts. These defalcations on the part of an officer of this court —because you are an officer of this court —throw discredit on the whole of the profession of which you were a member. The great majority--by far the great majority—of members of the legal profession are trustworthy, honourable men, but when one member commits frauds of this description, there is a taint thrown upon the whole of the legal profession throughout the colony. You have not only injured yourself, you have not only taken property which belonged to other people and injured them, but you have also injured the honourable profession to which you belonged. The law permits me to pass a sentence of seven years for this, offence. I was considering whether or not it was not my bounden duty to pass that sentence upon you, but the circumstances which Mr Skerrett mentioned justify me, I think, in not imposing the full sentence, but it must be a substantial punishment. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the Wellington gaol for five years. —Post.