Robert Irwin MEACLEM [George Norman RAYMOND]

1893 - 1967  (73 years)

• Name	Robert Irwin MEACLEM
  Known As	George Norman RAYMOND
  Birth	02 Oct 1893	Ashburton, Canterbury, New Zealand   [1, 2]
  Gender	Male
  Convicted	02 Jun 1910	Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	02 Jun 1910  [3]
  	Convicted for Theft, sentence 1 month imprisonment
  Convicted	28 Mar 1911	Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	28 Mar 1911  [3]
  	Convicted for breaking, entering and theft. Sentence: returned to Burnham
  Convicted	14 Aug 1911	Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	14 Aug 1911  [3]
  	Convicted for theft. Sentence: 3 years reformative treatment (Burnham Industrial School)
  Convicted	23 Dec 1913	Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	23 Dec 1913  [3]
  	Convicted of false pretenses, 3 months imprisonment
  Convicted	06 Feb 1915	Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	06 Feb 1915  [3]
  	Convicted for theft, sentence 1 year imprisonment
  Convicted	25 Jan 1916	Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	25 Jan 1916  [3]
  	Convicted of default of maintenance, 1 month imprisonment
  Convicted	06 Aug 1917	Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	06 Aug 1917  [3]
  	Convicted of administering chloroform with intent to commit a crime, sentence 3 years imprisonment
  Convicted	11 Aug 1917	Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	11 Aug 1917  [3]
  	Convicted for theft, sentence 6 months imprisonment
  Convicted	05 Nov 1917	Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	05 Nov 1917  [3]
  	Convicted of 3 charges of forgery and uttering, sentence 1 year imprisionment
  Convicted	05 Dec 1923	Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand   [3]
  Sentence	05 Dec 1923  [3]
  	Convicted of false pretenses (sentence 2 years) and false declaration under Marriage Act (sentence 3 months)
  Death	10 Jun 1967	Lower Hutt, Wellington, New Zealand   [1, 2, 4, 5]
  Burial	13 Jun 1967	Taita, Wellington, New Zealand   [2, 4, 5]
  Person ID	I12032	NZ Genealogy Project
  Last Modified	13 Feb 2021

  
  

  Family 1	Mabel BLUNDELL,   b. 14 Apr 1891, Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand d. 12 Jul 1932, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (Age 41 years)
  Marriage	22 Jul 1914	New Zealand   [6, 7]
  Family ID	F6147	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	31 Dec 2024

  
  

  Family 2	Dorothea Eileen MUDGWAY,   b. 08 Oct 1904, Levin, Manawatu, New Zealand d. 08 Nov 1978, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (Age 74 years)
  Marriage	17 Jan 1923	Levin, Manawatu, New Zealand   [6, 8]
  Notes	Abandoned Family LEVIN - 31st ultimo, on warrant for failing to maintain his wife, Dorothea Eileen Raymond, and three children, Salisbury Street, George Norman Raymond, alias Robert Irwin Meachleam, age forty-one, height 5 ft. 9¼ in., mechanic, native of New Zealand, strong build, fresh complexion, brown hair, grey eyes, long nose, clasped hands and flowers on right forearm, woman, Maltese cross, ship, flag and "M.C." on left forearm, scars on nose, on left forearm, and on back of left hand, sinews on left hand injured. )See Police Gazette, 1933, page 70, and photographs, 1921, page 27.). Noted - Arrested 21/12/38. Source: New Zealand Police Gazette, 22 September 1937, Page 664.
  Children	1. Patrica Eileen Jane RAYMOND [Pat],   b. 03 Oct 1923, Levin, Manawatu, New Zealand d. 25 Jan 2017, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (Age 93 years)   2. Ena Daphne RAYMOND,   b. 1926, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand d. 1975, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (Age 49 years) + 3. Basil Douglas RAYMOND,   b. 09 Apr 1928, Levin, Manawatu, New Zealand d. 27 Dec 1980, Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand (Age 52 years)
  Family ID	F3840	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	31 Dec 2024

  
  

  Family 3	Mavis McMAHON,   b. 11 Apr 1917, Stratford, Taranaki, New Zealand d. 05 Mar 2001, Palmerston North, Manawatu, New Zealand (Age 83 years)
  Marriage	27 Jun 1946	New Zealand   [6, 7, 9]
  Divorce	1950	Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand   [10]
  Family ID	F6148	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	31 Dec 2024

  
  

  Family 4	Eunice Gertrude MARRIOTT,   b. 1922, Waverley, Taranaki, New Zealand d. 26 Nov 1969, Lower Hutt, Wellington, New Zealand (Age 47 years)
  Marriage	1949	New Zealand   [6, 7]
  Family ID	F6149	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	31 Dec 2024

  
  

• Event Map		Birth - 02 Oct 1893 - Ashburton, Canterbury, New Zealand Convicted - 02 Jun 1910 - Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand Convicted - 28 Mar 1911 - Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand Convicted - 14 Aug 1911 - Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand Convicted - 23 Dec 1913 - Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Marriage - 22 Jul 1914 - New Zealand Convicted - 06 Feb 1915 - Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Convicted - 25 Jan 1916 - Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Convicted - 06 Aug 1917 - Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand Convicted - 11 Aug 1917 - Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand Convicted - 05 Nov 1917 - Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand Marriage - 17 Jan 1923 - Levin, Manawatu, New Zealand Convicted - 05 Dec 1923 - Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Marriage - 27 Jun 1946 - New Zealand Marriage - 1949 - New Zealand Divorce - 1950 - Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand Death - 10 Jun 1967 - Lower Hutt, Wellington, New Zealand Burial - 13 Jun 1967 - Taita, Wellington, New Zealand  = Link to Google Earth
  Pin Legend	: Address       : Location       : City/Town       : County/Shire       : State/Province       : Country       : Not Set

  
  

• Photos » Slide Show

  
  

• Notes

  CONVICTIONS The following are newspaper reports of court appearances by Robert Meaclem. SUPREME COURT. DUNEDIN, March 28 1911 A young man named Joseph Thomas Christie and a lad named Robert Irwin Meaclem, were brought before the Supreme Court for sentence this morning on charges of breaking into and stealing from a settler's residence. The Crown Prosecutor said that Meaclem was convicted of theft at Christchurch in June, and had been committed to Burnham School, from which he absconded. Christie, in 1908, was whipped at Masterton for stealing. The latter was convicted and ordered to cone up for sentence for theft, and in 1909 convicted and sent to Burnham. He absconded, and was rearrested at Kaiapoi, and once more absconded. Next he was convicted of theft and forgery at Napier and sent to Invercargill prison for four years, where his conduct was exemplary, and he was sent back to Burnham, where he absconded. His Honor said that Meaclem would be sent back to Burnham. Christie would be sent to Invercargill prison for reformative purposes, to be there detained for a period not exceeding five years. Source: Star, 28 March 1911, Page 3. THE MOTOR THEFT. BURNHAM ABSCONDERS BEFORE THE COURT. A REMAND GRANTED. The case of the daring and impudent theft of Dr W. F. Browne's motor-car was mentioned at the Magistrate's Court this morning, when three absconders from the Burnham Industrial School, Robert Irwin Meaclem, eighteen years of age, Edwin Stewart Agnew, seventeen years of ago, and Samuel George Ross, seventeen years of age, appeared before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M. The youths were first, charged with having absconded from Burnham, and each pleaded guilty. The police evidence was to the effect that Agnew, who had been an inmate of St Mary's Industrial School, Auckland, and of the Nelson Industrial School, had frequently absconded from school. Meaclem, who had been transferred from gaol to Burnham, had absconded twice, and Ross once. The accused were then further charged with having stolen a motorcar, valued at £550. the property of William Frederick Browne, a medical practitioner, a rug, which had been in the car, valued at £2 10s, and which had not been recovered, and with having obtained from James Bennington two tins of petrol, valued at 15s, by a false pretence, to wit, by representing that they were for Dr Browne. The Magistrate stated that he did not think that lads of the stamp of the accused should be sent back to Burnham. One of them had absconded over and over again, and the police evidence showed that he was determined not to remain in a home. He considered that they should be sent up for reformative treatment for twelve months. That was how he would deal with thorn if they were dealt with summarily. If, however, the police intended to go on with the motor charge the accused must go before the Supreme Court. Chief-Detective Bishop applied for a remand till Wednesday, and the Magistrate granted the application. Source: Star, 19 June 1911, Page 3. POLICE COURT. STOLE AWAY FROM THE WIFE. "He left his wife three months ago with a young baby to keep and no food or money in the house," stated Mr. Matthews, concerning Robert Irwin Meaclem (22), who had been brought from Kawakawa on a charge of having failed to provide his wife with adequate maintenance. Mr. Matthews stated that Mcaclem had been working for a carting company in town, when one morning, he suddenly disappeared, and the wife, left destitute, had to seek the assistance of relatives and friends. That was three months ago. Now, Meaclem had come to Auckland in custody for theft at Kawakawa, and had to go before the Supreme Court on Saturday for sentence. Meachlem said that he would do his best to pay his wife £1 a week when he was in a position to get work, provided that when he got out of prison he wasn't arrested again at the gate on a maintenance order. "That is a matter for your wife to take action in," stated his Worship, "and she is not likely to do anything so foolish as that." Adding that when he was in work defendant seemed to be able to make a good wage, his Worship made an order of 20/ a week against defendant. Source: Auckland Star, 5 February 1915, Page 6. SUPREME COURT. GUILTY OF THEFT. DRINKING HABITS NO EXCUSE. It was urged by Mr. J. R. Lundon that the cause of Robert Irwin Meaclem's theft at Kawakawa was drink, combined with the effects of injuries to his head. The circumstances of the case, said His Honor, showed that the prisoner was in full possession of his faculties at the time. His record showed him to be qualified as a habitual criminal, and he would be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. Source: New Zealand Herald, 8 February 1915, Page 7. POLICE COURT. A NEGLECTED RESPONSIBILITY Robert Irwin Meaclem, a member of the Expeditionary Reinforcements, was charged that he had failed to comply with a maintenance order of 20/- a week respecting his wife. Mr. Matthews (for complainant) stated that the wife had been left by Meaclem absolutely dependent on her father at a time when her confinement was imminent. The father was himself a person not in good circumstances, and could not bear the double burden. The wife had now recovered from her illness, and was endeavouring to work for herself. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to a month's imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended pending a compulsory military order of attachment on his pay. Source: Auckland Star, 25 January 1916, Page 6. THE CHLOROFORM CASE. THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS. In the Christchurch case in which William Kinnaird and Robert Irwin Meaclem were charged with having, with intent to commit a crime, attempted to cause Andrew Guild and Enid Guild to be affected by chloroform Detective Abbott stated that Menclem had made a written voluntary statement, in which he said that he was a labourer, residing in Auckland when at home. He arrived in Christchurch on July 1, in company with a man who gave his name as O'Connor. They went to the Federation Coffee Palace. On July 4 they went to the Clarendon Hotel, and booked a room but did not occupy it until the following morning. The same night they went for a joy ride in a taxi, and had a breakdown, and did not get back to town until between four and five the next morning. The porter let them into the Clarendon. They went to their room, and he (Meaclem) went to bed, but Kinnaird went out. Meaclem was not out of his room until about 10.30 that morning. He discovered Kinnaird's revolver and also a bottle of chloroform, which he had in the lavatory. Detective Abbott, continuing, said that this statement was read over to Kinnaird, who said: As he has admitted it, I might as well tell the true facts." Kinnaird said he saw Wilson show his revolver to the night porter. Later Kinnaird went to look for the waitress, to whom he had spoken during the day. The porter had told him that she was in the room opposite theirs. He looked in and saw a man asleep there. It then struck him to try whether the chloroform he had bought was all right. He threw the handkerchief soaked with it on the pillow and went to his own room. The accused pleaded not guilty, reserved their defence, and were committed to the Supreme Court for trial at the next sitting on August 6. Mr. Cassidy's application for bail was refused. Source: Auckland Star, 24 July 1917, Page 6. THE CLARENDON CASE. TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED. SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS. William Kinniard and Robert Irwin Meaclem were charged with having used a noxious drug, chloroform, with intent to commit the crime of the theft of goods and chattels of Andrew R. Guild and Enid Guild. The accused both pleaded not guilty. They were not represented by counsel. Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., said that on July 4, Mr and Mrs Guild were staying at the Clarendon Hotel. They were occupying room 31, the door of which was closed but not locked. Mrs Guild woke in the morning, and found she had been under the influence of chloroform. On the pillow between her and her husband was a handkerchief soaked with chloroform. There was nothing of value missing, but Mr Guild had on retiring a number of papers, a railway bill, a receipt, cablegram and a pamphlet, which were taken. These were in his pocket. The two accused came to the hotel on the evening of July 4, had room 36, opposite room 31. After their arrest accused made voluntary statements. The Crown would show that the chloroform was administered with the knowledge, of both men. Andrew R. Guild said that on the night of the 4th his wife retired about an hour before he did. At about 11.10 p.m. he went up to room No. 31 and his wife woke up when he went in. At 5.25 the next morning he was awakened by his wife calling him, when he noticed a strong smell of chloroform. He then discovered the handkerchief on the pillow. Some time later he missed the papers mentioned. Kinniard: You do not know when those papers were taken? - No. Kinniard: Would those papers be of any value to anyone but yourself? - No. His Honour: Their value has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that the papers were taken from a man's pocket. The fact of their being valueless does not help you. Kinniard (to witness): If my object in administering this drug was robbery, is it likely that I would take only these papers instead of valuables? His Honour: That is a matter for the jury. Enid Guild, wife of the previous witness, corroborated her husband's evidence. When she woke in the morning she found herself standing at the end of the bed. She felt a choking sensation. In reply to a question by Kinniard, witness said that she did not remember getting out of bed. Thomas Leslie Crooke gave evidence regarding the effects of chloroform. Theophayne Murphy, assistant booking clerk of the Clarendon Hotel, and John Thomas Souper, licensee, also gave evidence. Edward Charles Price, night porter at the hotel, said that on the night of the 4th, whilst he was serving the accused with some drinks, Meaclem produced a revolver. When witness showed them upstairs, one of the accused said to him: "Where is the room of that waitress who was on last night?" Witness showed him an empty room, No. 38. About 5.25 in the morning he saw one of the accused in the corridor looking at the skylight, over the door of room 31. A waitress at the Clarendon Hotel said that she was on duty on the night of the 4th. She served supper to three guests in the smoke room, two of whom were the accused. John Oakley, warehouseman for Messrs G. W. Witson and Co., said that he remembered seeing Kinniard come into the shop and buy two ounces of chloroform. Edward Bates, taxi-driver, said that he had taken the accused for a ride on the night of July 4. They left his car at the Clarendon Hotel at about 3.30 a.m. on July 5. The next day he saw the accused who told him that they were in trouble at the Clarendon, and asked him to say nothing about what had happened the night before. Detective Abbot gave evidence as to finding Guild's papers in the wardrobe in the accused s room. James Hugh Lloyd, police constable, stationed at Lyttelton, said that on July 20, when he was escorting the two accused from Lyttelton Gaol to the Christchurch Police Station Kinniard said to him, "I was drunk at the time. I was only experimenting. Of course, the charge that they have put against me, 'with intent to commit a crime,' puts a different complexion on the case. Oh, well, I suppose I will get seven years for it." Detective Eade said that he found a bottle of chloroform and a revolver in the hotel on July 5. He had known Meaclem for years and the story that he had come from the United States was quite incorrect. This concluded the case for the prosecution. THE DEFENCE. Robert Irwin Meaclem, on oath, said that the bottle of chloroform on the evening before the affair, was standing on the edge of his portmanteau in his room, and he accidentally knocked it over, spilling about half of it. He picked it up again and put it in his pocket. Later in the evening he gave the bottle to Kinniard. The revolver belonged to him (Meaclem). In an address to the jury, Kinniard denied placing the handkerchief in the room with intent to commit a crime. He had been drinking and was under the influence of liquor. He bought the chloroform, which he intended to use for an entirely different purpose. He wanted to go home to England, and although he was a seaman and he had a ship, he had lost his papers. He had secured another man's papers and he wanted to use the chloroform in order to alter dates, names, etc., and use Ihe papers as his own. When he went into room 31, instead of seeing the party he expected to, he saw a man asleep. He at once went out again. He then thought of the chloroform and thought he would test it to see whether it was all right, so he soaked the handkerchief on the pillow and threw it in the room. (Proceeding.) Source: Sun, 10 August 1917, Page 11. THE CHLOROFORM CASE ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY CHRISTCHURH, August 10 1917. The hearing of the case in which William Kinniard and Robert Irwin Meaclem were charged with using chloroform, with intent to commit a crime, concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday. In summing up, his Honour (Mr Justice Denniston) said it was a perfectly simple case. The experiment theory put forward was absurd and there was every reason to believe that the affair was worked jointly by the two. The jury retired at 3.30 p.m., and at 3.40 returned with a verdict of guilty. Asked if he had anything to say, Kinniard said that he had been very unfortunate all his life. It was not the first time he had been before the Court; in fact, he had some 16 previous convictions, but an examination of the list would show that they were not so bad as at first appeared. He had always had to pay the full penalty, and had never had a chance in his life. Meaclem had nothing to say. His list was also a large one. His Honour said that the section of the law under which the two were charged took such a serious view of the matter that it made them liable to imprisonment for life. Each was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Source: Ashburton Guardian, 13 August 1917, Page 5. ALLEGED FORGERY AND FALSE PRETENCES WELLINGTON, August 22 1917. At the Magistrate's Court Robert Irwin Meaclem, alias McLean, was charged on three informations with forging cheques for sums totalling £49, and obtaining goods and money therefor from tradesmen. Accused was committed for trial. Meaclem was further charged with obtaining timber valued at £34 14s from Odlin and Company by false pretences. The timber was afterwards sold by accused to a builder at Lyall Bay. Accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Source: Southland Times, 23 August 1917, Page 5. MEACLEM'S METHODS Are They of the Get-Rich-Quick Variety ? Some Cheque Operations The Accused's Way of "Testing the Memory" Robert Irwin Meaclem, who will be remembered in connection with the recent "chloroform case" at the Clarendon Hotel, Christchurch, faced some more music on "Wednesday of last week at the Magistrate Court, Wellington, when he was charged before Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., on., the following informations: That on June 30, at Wellington, he did forge a document purporting to, be a cheque drawn on Jas. Creighton, for £23 and utter it to Oscar Mears; forge a "Jas. Creighton" cheque for £11 and utter it to John Heyworth; forge a "Jas. Creighton" cheque for £15 and utter it to H. H. Rudkin; obtain from C. and A. Odlin, timber valued at £37 by a false pretence, in that he represented that he had a fencing contract, on which £36 was due to him. Chief-Detective Boddam conducted the prosecution and the forgery charges were proceeded with first. Oscar Mears, assistant in the employ of Herb. Price, gent.'s outfitters, Wellington, gave evidence of Meaclem having come into the shop and purchased a 10s 6d hat, in payment for which he tendered a cheque for £5, signed by Jas. Creighton. THE CHEQUE WAS GENUINE. On the following day accused again came to the shop and purchased a quantity of goods amounting to £17 5s. He tendered a cheque for £23 purporting to be signed by Jas. Creighton and received £4 15s change. Unlike the first cheque, however, the cheque for the large amount was dishonoured by the bank on which it was drawn. The goods produced in court were those which accused had purchased. Accused: When I presented the second cheque was my behaviour in any way suspicious? - No. Would you be able to recognise the person who was with me? - Yes. Evidence was also given by witnesses with the object of showing that accused had adopted similar methods in respect to the cashing of other bogus cheques, the authenticity of which was subsequently repudiated by Mr. Creighton, by whom they purported to have been signed. Accused lengthily cross-examined Creighton with the purpose of proving that his memory was defective. "Have you a good memory?" asked Meaclem. "A very fair one," conceded the witness. "Then it's only fair that I put your memory to the test. Please name the day, date, year, and circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Titanic. Can vou do so? - No. Can you give me the day and date on which King Edward died? - No. Accused asked another question concerning the sinking of the Karlsruhe and the Magistrate said that the line of cross-examination WAS QUITE IRRELEVANT. Hardly a man in the court would be able to answer the questions on hand. Accused persisted that it was only fair that he should be allowed to test the memory of the witness in any way he liked. The questions, however, were overruled and accused asked that the witness should sign his name on a piece of paper for the purpose of comparison with the signatures on the cheques. This was done and the specimen was handed in by the accused as an exhibit. Detective-Sergeant Eade, of Christchurch, gave evidence of having arrested Meaclem and another man on a separate charge at Christchurch on July 5, and, on July 20 he interviewed the accused in reference to the present charges. He was at that time in possession of the articles enumerated by the witness Oscar Mears. He refused to say where he had purchased the articles. He had £7 odd in his pockets when arrested. Expert evidence was given by an official of Creighton's bank, to the effect that the signatures on the cheques produced were not those of Creighton. The general characteristics of the signatures, however, were similar to the sample of accused's handwriting before the court. Certain peculiarities about the signatures led witness to the conclusion that they had been traced. Accused pleaded not guilty to the three charges of forgery and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. On the charge of false pretences, Ernest Arnold Heron, accountant for C. and A. Odlin, gave evidence of having, on June 25, allowed accused, who was brought to him by Mr. Odlin, to have timber valued at £36. Accused presented himself to be the son of a well-known Auckland contractor and backed up his statement that he was a small contractor at Lyall Bay by producing papers in connection with certain small contracts which he had evidently carried out. Accused signed an order on Mr. G. Goldfinch, of Broadway-terrace, the person from whom he said he had the contract, promising to pay for the timber when the contract was completed. Mrs. Mary Ann Maling, boarding-house-keeper, Broadway-terrace, Wellington, gave evidence that nobody by the name of G. Goldfinch had ever stayed at her place, which was that mentioned on accused's order on payment. Leslie Goldfinch said he KNEW ACCUSED CASUALLY three months ago, and had, on one occasion, made an arrangement with him to do some work. Nothing definite was done in that direction, however, and accused did no work for him, neither had he ever had any contract with witness. Evidence was also given by Jas. Creighton, builder, to the effect that accused approached him regarding the purchase of some timber which accused said was his property. Witness inspected the timber and purchased £19 worth. Later, witness purchased another £5 worth, accused having from the first told a plausible story concerning his possession and reason for disposing of the timber. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Accused, when charged, said he did not get the timber with the idea of getting rich quick. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Source: NZ Truth, 1 September 1917, Page 6. MEACLEM'S METHODS. 17 November 1917 Declared an Habitual. Robert Irwin Meaclem had pleaded guilty to uttering forged cheques. Prisoner murmured something to the effect that he did not know they were valueless. "You are too late making excuses now," said his Honor. "I am sorry to see you have a bad record. Leaving out lesser crimes I see you pleaded guilty to theft in 1910; to two charges of breaking, entering and theft and a. charge of false pretences in 1915; and this year you received three years for administering a drug (at the Clarendon Hotel, Christchurch), and now you are brought here from prison to answer this present charge. You will have to stay in gaol at least two years yet, and I think the best thing is to get you under the jurisdiction of the Prisons Board. You will be sentenced to one year's imprisonment and declared an habitual criminal. Source: NZ Truth, 17 November 1917, Page 5. A BOGUS CONTRACTOR. COMMITTED FOR SENTENCE. AUCKLAND, Monday 19 Nov 1923. A plea of guilty was entered in respect of four charges involving false pretences when Robert Irwin Meaclem appeared at the Police Court this morning. The charges concerned the illegal procuration of goods of a total value of £229 5s from John Burns and Co., Ltd., and benzine, oil, and motor spirit of a total value of £ll9 6s from the Vacuum Oil Proprietary Co., Ltd. Accused had represented that he was a builder and contractor at Birkenhead, that he was engaged on several large contracts and ran a number of motor lorries. The evidence showed that some of the goods were disposed of by accused. A statement admitting the charges was made by Meachlem. Accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Source: Waipa Post, 20 November 1923, Page 5. CITY FIRMS DEFRAUDED. GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES. COMMENT BY THE JUDGE. TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. Four charges of having obtained goods of a total value of about £348 by false pretences had been admitted by Robert Irwin Meaclem, aged 33 (Mr. Sullivan), who appeared before Mr. Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court yesterday for sentence. Prisoner had obtained goods valued at about £230 from one firm in the city, and benzine, motor spirit and oils of a total value of about £113 from another firm. Counsel said that Meaclem had been declared an habitual criminal, and was released on license in 1921. It was very difficult for him to obtain employment, as he was branded as a ticket-of-leave man or as out on license. He obtained work at two places, but had to leave owing to the taunts of other men. It was under these conditions that he committed the offences. He was not then arrested, obtained employment in another district, and for 18 months had satisfactorily held a position of trust and had gone straight. Counsel urged that His Honor might make a recommendation to the Prisons Board for prisoner's release on license at the expiration of whatever term of imprisonment might be imposed on him. His Honor expressed surprise at the ease with which prisoner obtained credit. He went to two business firms, represented himself to be a certain builder and contractor, and after the most perfunctory inquiries the firms trusted him with goods. The Crown Solicitor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, said he thought there was a builder by the name given. Later Mr. Meredith said that prisoner had been arrested at Palmerston North. He had married, and had one child. His Honor: It is not a desirable type to perpetuate. A sentence of two years' imprisonment was imposed by His Honor, who said he would bring the case under the notice of the Prisons Board. Source: New Zealand Herald, 6 December 1923, Page 7. A PRISONER'S ROMANCE. MARRIED UNDER FALSE NAME. A strange matrimonial story was unfolded when Robert Irwin Meaclem (Mr Sullivan) appeared at the Supreme Court at Auckland, before Mr Justice Stringer, for sentence for making a false declaration to the registrar of marriages. Counsel said that prisoner was now serving a term of imprisonment and was an habitual criminal. He had married under an assumed name about two years ago. He did that, not for a criminal purpose, but that be might make a fresh start in-life and rehabilitate himself under a new name. His wife was looking forward to their reunion when he was released. His Honour: Was he able to contract a lawful marriage ? Counsel said that almost seven years had elapsed since he had heard from his former wife and she herself had married again. Each thought the other was dead. His Honour had acceded to counsel's request, when prisoner was declared an habitual criminal, that the Prisons Board should be asked to release him at the end of his sentence. His Honour sentenced prisoner to three months imprisonment concurrent with the sentence now being served. Source: Manawatu Standard, 2 February 1924, Page 5.

  
  

• Sources

  [S11] email. From Carrie Harlick [email removed for privacy] on 18/08/2019 [S1411] Ivy Brown, Ancestry.com - Public Member Tree - Brown Family Tree, (Ancestry.com). [S1209] NZ Police Gazettes, 1878-1945, (Ancestry.com). [S385] NZ Cemetery Records, 1800-2007, (Ancestry.com). [S679] Hutt City Cemeteries Online, (Hutt City Council, Wellington, New Zealand. 2010). [S172] NZ Marriages 1836-1956, (New Zealand Society of Genealogists, 2006). [S1415] Peter J Carter (peterjcarter1 ), Ancestry.com - Public Member Tree - McMahon, Patten, Reid, Gilbert, Paul, etc NZ & UK, (Ancestry.com). [S892] beautifulselena1980, Ancestry.com - Public Member Tree - Owens/Donnelly/Baker/Donnelly/Lovejoy/Andresen/Ensor/Mathers Family Tree, (Ancestry.com). [S642] NZ BDM - Historical Records - DATES, (Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand). [S45] ARCHWAY, (Archives New Zealand 2004), none.