POSED AS DOCTOR

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20259, 30 July 1937, Page 9

POSED AS DOCTOR

EMBEZZLER OF £6OOO. FORGERY ADMITTED. FORMER INSURANCE MANAGER. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. The view that he could not pass lightly over the offence to which prisoner had pleaded guilty was taken by Mr Justice Reed when he imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, on Albert Fergus Stanley Hickey (28), a former insurance company manager, on a charge of the attempted uttering of a forged document, namely, a certificate to the effect that he had completed certain medical studies and qualified for certain medical degrees. His Honour said it appeared from inquiries made in Melbourne that while prisoner was employed in an insurance office in Australia, before coming to New Zealand, he embezzled over a period of six years £6OOO. He was not for that, and promised to refund the money. It appeared that in some circumstances Hickey was absolutely irresponsible in his actions, and that* he did things quite regardless of what the consequences might be. Made Restitution of £3600. Mr Perry, for the prisoner, said he had made restitution of £3500 in hard cash of the money he had taken in Australia, and the assets transferred by him had been accepted in full settlement of the balance. Counsel pointed out that no one had been injured as a result of the offence for which Hickey was before the court. He said numbers of prominent men had approached him, asking whether there was anything they could do for Hickey, because they said he wag one of the finest and most unselfish men they knew. “Streak of Vanity.” Counsel submitted that there was no criminal instinct or tendenoy In Hiokey. He suggested that his representing himself as a doctor was the result of some streak of vanity. The Crown Prosecutor said it was true Hickey had not practised as a dootor In the sense that he attemupted to treat people. The Judge reminded prisoner that when the Health Department made Inquiries from him there was an opportunity to drop the title of “doctor,” but instead he embarked on a campaign of lying. Subsequently he had gone out of his way to forge a statement purporting to be from the registrar of the Melbourne University. If he had been an illiterate, uneducated man one could have given him some consideration, but that was not the position. The Judge referred to the embezzlement in Australia, and went on to say that he did not propose to impose a heavy penalty, because: “I can recognise that probably your life-work is ruined to a certain extent; but at the same time it must be made dear by Ihe sentence that the matter of for-' fery of a document such as you forged in this case cannot lightly be passed over.”