APPEALS FOR FUNDS

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20950, 1 November 1939, Page 9

APPEALS FOR FUNDS

Record Over 14 Years

BROADCAST ADDRESSES MONEY MISAPPROPRIATED (Special to Times) AUCKLAND, Tuesday Comment on the fact that a man who had a bad record for dishonesty was allowed to appeal to the public from each of the three wireless stations in Auckland was made by Mr Justice Fair when sentencing a prisoner in the Supreme Court to-day. The case was that of Albert Edward Arthur Hamilton, motor mechanic (Mr B. S. Lockhart), who had been found guilty of false pretences and obtaining credit by fraud. Mr Lockhart said the prisoner had had an indifferent education and had been left without guidance very early in life. There was no doubt he had done some charitable and benevolent work for orphans and cripples.

His Honour said people had been led to suppose that he was a generous man, giving freely of his time and taking nothing at all, but he was misappropriating the money subscribed by the public. It was impossible to grant probation in a case of this kind where a man had a bad record of dishonesty extending over the past 14 years. “ In considering that record and the prisoner’s history,” His Honour continued, “ it is surprising to find that, in spite of it, he had been allowed to appeal to the public from each of the three wireless stations in Auckland in support of the organisation known as the Auckland Bird Lovers’ Club. In consequence of these appeals he obtained large sums from the public, most of which he appears to have misappropriated for his own purposes.

Character of Speakers

“ It would seem desirable that in the future those who control these stations should satisfy themselves of the character of the speakers, who are given the privilege of speaking to a large number of the public, before allowing them to make appeals. In this case the facilities afforded have been used to defraud the public, and quite a small proportion of the money subscribed was spent, as was supposed, on outings for children.” His Honour said he would take into consideration the jury’s recommendation to mercy, although he doubted whether they would have made it if they had known the prisoner’s record. In view of the fact that these offences followed upon a course of misappropriation of moneys subscribed by the public the least sentence he could impose would be 18 months’ reformative treatment.