On 26th February 1918 at the sittings of the Supreme Court for
the heariug of criminal trials at Melbourne before Madden C.J. and
a jury, Albert Ward was tried on presentment for stealing in a
dwelling and receiving, and was found guilty of stealing in a dwelling.
Upon his conviction he was further charged with and admitted -
(inter alia) three previous convictions by a Court of Petty Sessions _
for larceny. He was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment for
two years with hard labour, and was declared to be a habitual
criminal, and was ordered on the expiration of the term of imprison-
ment then imposed upon him to be detained during the Governor's
pleasure in a reformatory prison. On an appeal by Ward to the
Full Court against the sentence and the decision of Madden C.J.,
the Full Court held that the words "convicted . . . of any
indictable offence " in sec. 514 of the Crimes Act 1915 (Vict.) did not
refer to a summary conviction before Justices for an offence which
might be tried on indictment. The Court therefore allowed the
appeal, ordered the sentence to be quashed, and in substitution
therefor passed a sentence of equal duration, and, pursuant to sec.
515 of the Crimes Act 1915, directed that on the expiration of the
term of imprisonment Ward should be detained during the Governor's
pleasure in a reformatory prison: R. v. Ward (1).