See what you think about the evidence and the sentence handed down:
"TAMWORTH BOROUGH POLICE.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 23.
Before the Mayor (Mr. H. C. Goostry) and Alderman T. W. Woodcock.
ATTEMPTED TILL ROBBERY.
Albert Stanton, labourer, of no fixed abode, was charged on remand with attempting to steal money from a till at the Carpenters' Arms inn, Upper Gungate, the property of Albert Edward Beaumont, on January 15. - William Jones, labourer, 4 Upper Gungate, stated that about 12-30 p.m. he went to the outdoor department of the inn. He looked through the window and saw that the till was open, and a man's hand was in it. There was no one else in the room but accused. He afterwards spoke to the landlady, and pointed to the till. The landlady accused Stanton of opening the till, and he denied it. - Hilda Beaumont (14), daughter of the landlord of the inn, stated that accused asked for a pint of mild ale, and she served him. Accused then asked her for a safety pin, and she left to go into the kitchen, leaving accused alone in the taproom. When she left the room the accused was standing against the fireplace, about four yards from the till, which was closed. Four or five minutes later she came back to the bar, and opened the till to get some change. Accused was still standing by the fireplace alone in the room. Having taken the change, she closed the till, and left the room. - Nellie Clara Beaumont, wife of the licensee, stated that when she asked accused what he was doing with his hand in the till, accused said Jones was a liar. He continued to deny tho charge. - P.s. Batkin said when charged, accused replied. "Let them prove it." - Accused pleaded not guilty, and said when Jones came in he was standing by the fire, and could not have reached the till if he had tried. He denied that he put his hand in the till.-Inspector Jeffery produced a long list of previous convictions against the accused, who, he said, was a cunning thief. - Accused was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour."
Tamworth Herald - Saturday 31 January 1925, page 2.
It sounds as if the main reason the poor bloke got sent downm was his past record. Which seems a bit unfair. As does the 3 months' hard labour, considering he didn't actually nick anything. Hard but unfair the courts were in the old days.