The King versus Gavet and Lenfestey

'His case is but one out of many that might be adduced, to prove the wisdom of intrusting the punishment of offences, in a small community like ours, to the discretion of the judges rather than to the precise letter of an unyielding statute law.' From The Star, February 3rd 1834.

ROYAL COURT Saturday, February 1st, 1834

The King versus Gavet and Lenfestey

The Crown Officers indicted Daniel Gavet and Abraham Lenfestey, both of the parish of St Saviour, the former a young man aged twenty, the latter an elderly person, to see themselves adjudged to such punishment as the Court might deem fit for having, on the 31st December last, cut down and stolen some ash wood from a garden belonging to Mr Nicolas De Lisle of the Piques in the said parish.

It appeared in evidence that parts of several trees had been cut off and carried away at various times from Mr De Lisle’s premises, that a quantity of ash, which Mr De Lisle identified to be his, was found concealed in the kitchen of Lenfestey, that Lenfestey had not stolen it himself, but had induced Gavet to go out and cut it down at night with a saw which he had lent him, that Gavet had not stolen it for his own profit but for that of Lenfestey, and that Gavet had, at least in part, acknowledged his guilt, whilst Lenfestey had stoutly denied having at all participated in the robbery.

Advocate MacCulloch was heard on behalf of Gavet, and the Crown Officers in support of the prosecution. The conclusions of these gentlemen were that Gavet should be sentenced to three months’ solitary confinement, the last month on bread and water.

The Court sentenced him in the mitigated punishment of six weeks’ imprisonment, whereof the last fortnight to be on bread and water. Advocate Falla was then heard on behalf of Lenfestey, and the Crown Officers in support of the prosecution. Their conclusions were that he should be sentenced to six years’ banishment from the bailiwick.

The Court, taking into consideration the age of Lenfestey, together with the circumstances of his being a married man, the father of a family, and the possessor of a small cottage and a plot of land, were of the opinion that banishment from the island might be the ruin both of himself and those depending on him, and therefore sentenced him to three months’ solitary confinement, the last month to be on bread and water.

[There can be little doubt that Lenfestey, had he been tried in England, would have been sentenced to a seven or fourteen years’ transportation. His case is but one out of many that might be adduced, to prove the wisdom of intrusting the punishment of offences, in a small community like ours, to the discretion of the judges rather than to the precise letter of an unyielding statute law.]