Bet the Judge in this instance has neither applied the law of recidive' nor has he given. adequate sentence under the law dealing with concurrence of offences.
While it may be conceded that the influence of some malady of mind body, age, oF previous good record may. sometimes. alleviate the consequence of crime, such as-theft ease of hunger, there is nothing in the nature and' circumstances of this case worthy of compassionate consideration. The obvious motive for the commission of these offences tends to aggravate or extenuate the guilt of the accused in his relation the public safety, Lareenoas violence to the person of a defenceless woman on the ie highway differs in malignity vith a simple act of larceny during fan owner's absence. The former belongs to that category of crimes which cannot be so easily guarded against as the Intter, and which, therefore, the offender has the stronger inducement to commit.
This signal failure to conform to the precepts of the Code argue int of skill to apply or a disposi tion to disregard the laws of China that, by agreement, are binding pon this Court. It is another instance of the absurd practice of applying the same punishment to crime: of different matignity. A failure to make distinct the nature and gradations of punishment will lead to the generality to conclude that.there is no distinction in the guilt, and does not adhere to the theory of punishment enunciated in the courts of the more enlightened counts The sentence of seven months imprisonment is inadequate under the Jaws of China. The sentence should be re-ixed as provided for in Auticle 21 of the Provisional Criminal Code, M1, B, Steves.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.