dant being seventy: W. C. Bennett, 14 Cr. A. R. 35, 1919: false pretences. Five years' p. s. reduced to two years' imp., defendant being eighty-one and senile: Ferrua, 14 Cr. A. R. 39, 1919: procuring abortion.

Co-defendants] The C. C. A. has in some cases refused to consider the disparity of their sentences: W. H. Ball, 6 Cr. A. R. 54, 1911; but in Canham, 5 Cr. A. R. 110, 1910, where a receiver, of previous excellent character, was sentenced to the same term as one of the principals, six months' imp. w. h. 1. was varied to the second div. Where the court thought that appellant was the moving spirit of a joint larceny, and sentenced him to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1., the C. C. A. equated it to the term imposed on the other defendant, viz. nine: W. Stanley, 7 Cr. A. R. 149, 1912. Caroubi, ib. 155; see Kervorkian; was decided on the same ground, but without in any way laying down a rule.' Where defendant played a lesser part in an assault with intent to rob, but received the same sentence-twelve months' imp. w. h. 1.-as the principal, it was reduced to six: J. Lyons, 8 Cr. A. R. 3, 1912. But a manager who ordered his assistant to inflict a blow was rightly sentenced to the same term as the latter: Dent, 9 Cr. A. R. 224, 1913. An accessory who went through a form of marriage with a woman whom he knew to be married was sentenced to nine months' imp. w. h. 1., while she was sentenced to three, but the C. C. A. reduced his term to the latter: E. Read, 11 Cr. A. R. 89, 1915.

a

When a brother and sister were sentenced to twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. for obtaining credit by fraud, &c., but the C. C. A. saw substantial difference in the gravity of the two offences,' it reduced the woman's sentence to four months' imp. without h. 1.: E. 1. Davies, 12 Cr. A. R. 60, 1916. In crimes of violence the actual striker, &c. should be punished more severely: Pridmore, 1913.

Confusion of offences] Where there is more than one indictment or a graver charge has been preferred, the judge must be careful not to be influenced by this fact in sentencing on the verdict found: E. Wells, 2 Cr. A. R. 259, 1909: bigamy and falsification of marriage register: sentence reduced; see Maximum Sentence. On a plea of guilty to common assault there was a sentence of six months' imp. w. h. 1., the court being influenced by a count for indecent assault to which there was a plea of not guilty: reduced to one month: Brockless, 9 Cr. A. R. 122, 1913. So when there were two indictments for incest, only one of which was tried, ten years' p. s. was reduced to five: W. H. Cooper, 10 Cr. A. R. 198, 1914. See A. Bright, 1916: p. s. for life reduced to ten years. In F. Marshall, 12 Cr. A. R. 208, 1917, six months' imp. w. h. 1. was reduced to six weeks for violence to a wife, the C. C. A. remarking, ‘One of the most difficult duties of a judge is to adjust his sentence to the verdict of the jury when he does not agree with it.'

Defence, an aggravation] e.g. on a trial for perjury in bastardy proceedings, by grave imputations on the prosecutrix: G. Lucas, 1 Cr. A. R. 234, 1908: twenty months' imp. w. h. 1. But because the judge thinks appellant has committed perjury in his defence and, after conviction, has 'brazened it out by protesting his innocence, he ought not to increase sentence: A. Newman, 9 Cr. A. R. 134, 1913. Of. M. Myers, 11 Cr. A. R. 115, 1915.

Detention before trial] may be taken into account: Gulston, 1 Or. A. R. 165, 1908; but it is always a matter of discretion for the judge: Mackintosh, 12 Cr. A. R. 42, 1916. In S. Harrison, 2 Cr. A. R. 94, 1909, Channell J. said: 'I generally allow for the previous imprisonment by counting it at the rate of one half.' So Haden, 1909. When four months' detention had preceded trial, two years' imp. w. h. 1. for carnal knowledge was reduced to eighteen months': F. Taylor, 8 Or. A. R. 26, 1912. Cf. McCulloch, 11 Or. A. R. 51, 1914. In G. H. Wood, ib. 53, three months were allowed; so Gillon, 12 Cr. A. R. 251, 1917: incorrigible.' But whether sentence can be ordered to run from the beginning of detention is doubtful: M. Rouse, 10 Cr. A. R. 179, 1914.

Drunkenness] may affect the guilty intention and so mitigate sentence: Morton, 1 Or. A. R. 255, 1908: burglary; O'Connell, 1909; Haden, 2 Cr. A. R. 149, 1909: larceny. But cf. G. Davies, 4 Cr. A. R. 48, 1910. A severer sentence than is usual should not be imposed for attempted suicide (nor semble for any offence) merely for purposes of reclamation: H. Crisp, 7 Cr. A. R. 173, 1912: six months' imp. reduced to six weeks'; no previous conviction. See that title and A. Beard, 1920.

Expulsion] If expulsion is not recommended, term of sentence may be increased: Fine, 8 Cr. A. R. 78, 1912; but if it is confirmed the preceding imp. may be lessened: Rappoport, 11 Cr. A. R. 206, 1915. See Friedman, 1914.

Feeble-mindedness] See McQueen, 1912.

Fine] Apparently a heavier fine (and consequently longer imp. in default) ought not to be imposed because the court thinks some one will pay it for defendant: W. Perkins, 6 Cr. A. R. 251, 1911: using house for betting.

First offence] See No previous conviction.

Flogging] should diminish a term of p. s.: Entwistle, 8 Cr. A. R. 93, 1912. The C. C. A. apparently is not in favour of this punishment for incorrigibles' except in very bad cases: Fidler, 9 Cr. A. R. 197, 1913. Twenty-five strokes with the cat' were reduced to fifteen for immoral solicitation, but fifteen months' imp. w. h. 1. stood: C. V. Smith, 10 Cr. A. R. 111, 1914.

Forfeiture of pension] Two concurrent terms of twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. were reduced to two consecutive terms of six, to save forfeiture: A. Griffith, 13 Or. A. R. 199, 1918.

Fraudulent trustee] The appropriate sentence seems to be three years' p. s.: H. Pope, 4 Cr. A. R. 128, 1910; and in the case of a solicitor, four years' is not too severe ordinarily: Causton, 1915.

Good character] See No Previous Conviction.

Hard labour] See No Hard Labour.

Hard labour after penal servitude] is to be avoided: J. W. Johnson, 7 Cr. A. R. 98, 1911: eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. for forgery,

after three years' p. s. for housebreaking, reduced to three and a half years' p. s. So Veale, 11 Cr. A. R. 114, 1915: twelve months' imp. w. h. 1., after three years' p. s., remitted.

Hard labour-consecutive sentences] Whether a further sentence making the total term more than twenty-four months is legal, is doubtful; the point was not decided in J. M. Taylor, 2 Cr. A. Ř.158, 1909where one court had imposed twelve and another fifteen consecutive months, as the C. C. A. reduced the latter to three. The court decidedly leans against it: Borham, 13 Cr. A. R. 193, 1918: thirty-three months' reduced to eighteen. Two consecutive terms of twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. for larceny and false pretences were reduced by six months: Cailes, 9 Cr. A. R. 144, 1913. The second court should to some extent consider the first sentence; when nine months' imp. w. h. 1. followed immediately on four months' for a similar offence about the same time, the second term was reduced to six: Richardson, 5 Cr. A. R. 278, 1910. For three sentences of six months' imp. w. h. 1. for three larcenies by a trick committed about the same time, the C. C. A. substituted twelve months' from the date of the first conviction: Laycock, 6 Cr. A. R. 213, 1911.

No consecutive term of h. 1. ought to be imposed on a sentence of two years' imp. w. h. 1.: M. Goldstein, 11 Cr. A. R. 29, 1914.

Three years' imp. w. h. 1. is still permitted by 14-5 V. 19, 12.

Interval since a previous conviction] should be taken into account: J. Hill, 2 Or. A. R. 74, 1909, as good conduct may be presumed: J. Cullen, 4 Cr. A. R. 7, 1910: six years' interval, twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. reduced to five; B. Smith, ib. 48: twelve months' interval, five years' p. s. reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1.; W. Chapman, ib. 54: interval of nearly two years, twenty months' imp. w. h. 1. reduced to twelve. But see Crawford, 2 Cr. A. R. 305, 1909: three years' p. s. for obtaining, &c., two: relapse after a long interval; A. J. White, 1916: interval, three years; same in W. Griffiths, 1911. After thirteen years, three years' p. s. reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1.: Yardley, 13 Cr. A. R. 131, 1918: shop-breaking.

Though five years' p. s. for stealing a gig, the last conviction having taken place three years previously, was upheld: Pratley, 4 Cr. A. R. 159, 1910, the same term was reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. for a small theft when the severest previous sentence was twelve months' three years previously: Mountford, 4 Cr. A. R. 224, 1910. In S. Hawkins, 5 Cr. A. R. 237, 1910, the last really serious offence being seven years earlier-housebreaking, six months' imp. w. h. 1.— eighteen were reduced to twelve for the same offence; Wilkinson, 6 Cr. A. R. 89, 1910: receiving: eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. reduced to nine in view of six months' honest work. After an interval of good conduct for six years, three years' p. s. for uttering a forged cheque was reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1.: Nevell, 8 Cr. A. R. 158, 1913; cf. Doubleday, 1917. Though there were five previous convictions, as the last for housebreaking, followed by twelve months' imp. w. h. 1., was three and a half years previously, since which defendant had worked honestly, two years' imp. w. h. 1. for a small theft was reduced to nine months': Alden, ib. 176. After many previous convictions, p. s. should only be imposed for a trifling offence of the same nature when it is committed soon after release from prison: T. Connor, 9 Cr. A. R. 131, 1913, where the interval was nearly a year. This case was cited not as a binding' rule, but 'some

6

guide' in C. Sanders, ib. 180, where there were many previous convictions, but the value of the things stolen was small and the interval was nearly two years: five years reduced to three. McKone, ib. 182: receiving, is to the same effect. In J. Connor, ib. 183, the twentieth conviction was for a larceny committed a few days after release from prison, but as the value of the property was small eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. was reduced to nine. Despite a series of convictions after eighteen months' interval since release, four years' p. s. for stealing cycles was reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1.: Malkin, 12 Cr. A. R. 277, 1917. After seventeen years since a conviction for perjury, six months' imp. w. h. 1. for larceny was reduced to two without h. 1.: Bibbings, 13 Cr. A. R. 205, 1918.

Local circumstances] Prevalence of a crime in a particular district is a ground for severity: Spencer, Boyd, 1 Cr. A. R. 37, 65, 1908; A. Smith, 1918; or difficulty in coping with it: Warner, 1909; Sprake, 3 Or. A. R. 63, 1909, where a woman was sentenced to four months' imp. w. h. 1. for stealing coal, though it was a first offence. But twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. for a first offence of receiving was excessive and reduced to six: Court, 6 Or. A. R. 122, 1911; for a second, eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. was upheld: 7 Cr. A. R. 127, 1912; eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. was reduced to twelve: Richmond, 6 ib. 204: van robbery; Bradshaw and others, ib. 223, though the C. C. A. agreed that housebreaking in Middlesex must be repressed with special severity. See No Previous Conviction. Where the use of the knife was prevalent in a quarter of Birmingham, five years' p. s. was upheld, though previous convictions would not otherwise have warranted that sentence: A. C. Green, 7 Cr. A. R. 225, 1912; cf. Connor, 8 Cr. A. R. 156, 1912: three years' p. s. for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. But if defendant is feeble-minded, such severity is inappropriate McQueen, 8 Cr. A. R. 91, 1912: housebreaking in Middlesex: twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. reduced to six.

Frequency of an offence generally is a ground for increasing severity: Colpus, 12 Cr. A. R. 201, 1916. So pending war, the court declined to encourage the view that meritorious military service was a ground for mitigation, as it had led to an increase of offences: Ansell, 13 Cr. A. R. 110, 1918: three years' p. s. obtaining money by false pretences; especially in bigamy: Spargo, ib. 122.

Maximum sentence] should be reserved for the worst cases: S. Harrison, 1909—indecent assault found on indictment for rape: 'The judge

was not at liberty to take into consideration that in fact the prisoners might have been guilty of rape. We think that he must have taken that possibility into consideration': per C. C. A. Inveterate theft justifies such a sentence, even when the value of the thing stolen in the particular case is small: McCreese, 4 Cr. A. R. 72, 1910. After several previous convictions for various crimes, five years' p. s. was reduced to three years' for malicious wounding (partly owing to defendant's having suffered from sunstroke): Camp, 12 Cr. A. R. 279, 1917.

For incorrigible rogues: E. Edwards, 2 Cr. A. R. 79, 1909; W. Cooper, 5 Cr. A. R. 274, 1910; viz.: twelve months' imp. w. h. 1., reduced.

In H. White, 8 Cr. A. R. 3, 1912: larceny, Darling J. said: A sentence of two years' imp. w. h. 1. is very severe: judges only impose it for very grave offences because it is known that day for day it is

harder than a similar period in a sentence of penal servitude'; though appellant had a bad record the want of deliberation' in the theft was taken into consideration and the sentence reduced to twelve months' imp. w. h. 1.

It is excessive to inflict the maximum sentence-five years' p. s. -for obtaining three shillings by false pretences, even if defendant's record is very bad; there should be some proportion between the punishment and the crime'; appellant was sixty-four: G. R. Williams, 7 Or. A. R. 51, 1911: reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. Twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. for a common assault, after two long terms (p. s. and imp. w. h. 1.), was reduced to three, but a recommendation for expulsion was not set aside: Josephson, 10 Cr. A. R. 10, 1914.

Where the maximum sentence by statute was four months' imp. w. h. 1., but the conviction (for brothel keeping) was at common law and nine months in the second division were imposed, in a case admittedly not serious, five weeks were substituted: Stallwood, 11 Cr. A. R. 162, 1915.

Motive] Absence of corruption mitigates sentence in certain cases: three years' p. s. reduced to twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. for disclosing information which might assist the enemy without bad intention: Spalding, 12 Cr. A. R. 253, 1917.

Nature of offence] See Trivial Nature.

Nature of previous offences] After two years' imp. w. h. 1. for abduction, three years' p. s. for housebreaking was reduced to eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1.: Parsons, 7 Cr. A. R. 76, 1911. In W. Stanley, eighteen months' imp. w. h. 1. was reduced to nine for a first larceny, though there was a conviction for living on immoral earnings. After two convictions for bigamy, three years' p. s. for housebreaking was reduced to twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. partly in view of defendant's good character in the army: Kesingland, 8 Cr. A. R. 57, 1912. See Bibbings, 1918.

No hard labour] Imp. without h. 1. (to save forfeiture) may be for a longer term than with: A. G. E. Bright, 4 Cr. A. R. 194, 1910. For the same purpose, three years' p. s. was reduced to one year's imp.: Tanner, 6 Cr. A. R. 63, 1910: postman altering postmark; and fifteen months' imp. in the second division to nine months': larceny by a non-commissioned officer: Daniels, 11 Cr. A. R. 101, 1915. H. Ì. was remitted in the case of a violinist with a view to future professional work: Burdee, 12 Cr. A. R. 153, 1916.

No violence] A housebreaker sentenced to ten years' p. s. and ten years' p. d., who was not guilty of violence, had the former reduced to three: Sumner, 13 Cr. A. R. 88, 1918.

No previous conviction] The second division was substituted for hard labour in A. Rouse, 2 Cr. A. R. 74, 1909: larceny, and in Heap, 6 Cr. A. R. 101, 1910: embezzlement. In Fitzgerald, 6 Cr. A. R. 99, 1910, and Day, 7 Cr. A. R. 250, 1912, twelve months' imp. w. h. 1. was reduced to six, for housebreaking, though that offence was frequent in the district.

But there are 'first offenders and first offenders,' and eighteen