SOMMERVILLE RELEASED

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 110, 9 May 1903, Page 5

SOMMERVILLE RELEASED

TWELVE MONTHS' PROBATION.

THE JUDGE'S VIEW OF THE CKIME.

David Soninierville was brought' up for sentence before Mr Justice Conblly at noon to-day on the charge of arson in connection with the setting fire to the books and premises of Messrs. J. Reid and Co. at Auckland in February last.

Mr J. C. Martin , appeared for the prisoner, who had pleaded guilty. In a long address to the accused Mr Justice Gonolly said: —"I do not know t;hat I ever had a case in which I found more difficulty in arriving at a conclusion than in. yours. You have pleaded guilty to setting fire,to the office of Mr Reid;, and thus doing a very serious "offence. The peculiarity of the charge of arson is this, that it almost always is for Some motive, and I may say for one of two motives--either for the motive of gain, where a man insures his house or property for a large sum and then burns it down, or for the motive, of malice, as when a man sets fire to the house or property of another one against whom he has ill-feeling. Now, in your ease, I find a-total absence of both these usual causes. It.is quite certain that in]setting fire to the books, the fire from which apparently spread to the floor—oi\ possibly the floor ignited first—if you succeeded in burning all the books and all the building it could not a.s far as 1 can see have profited you in the slightest degree. There is nothing in the evidence taken in the Lower Court to show that you could possibly derive any benefit from it. The only thing is that your accounts were evidently got into a terrible state of confusion. The evidence, to my mind, points more distinctly to ignorance and incompetence at book-keep-ing on the part of you and other persons employed than t<p anything criminal. Consequently Mr Wilding, who has been through the books, says that when you commenced to be book-keeper the accounts did not balance to the extent, of £365, but when this fire occurred they did not balance by £3000, and out of that £3000 £2000 was accounted for by errors in addition. It isa most extraordinary thing. It does appear to me that you showed more ineompetency than dishonesty. .•If . you had burned the whole building you could have gained nothing by" it. On the other hand. His Honor continued, there is not the slightest avidence that you had any malice against Mr Reid. He appears, -whether you were competent or incompetent, to have been, satisfied with you. He said your cash accounts were always correct, and he seems to be unable to understand why you did not report the state of the accounts to him. The only possible suggestion that can be made is that you were afraid, if it was shown what a muddled state things were in, you would be dismissed. That, was the worst that could happen to you. Otherwise there was no benefit you could possibly derive. And, as I said before, there is not the slightest evidence you had any malice against Mr Reid.

Therefor© it eblhes down tofoVo mo§t unintelligible things: Why did you, if in your right mind and answerable for your actions, turn this place down, or try to do so? I confess I am totally at a loss to understand why you did so. It really seems more the act of a lunatic than a sane man. Therefore I say, looking at it in that light, I am bound to say in your favour that there is nothing to indicate a criminal mind, and therefore you ought not to be treated as one whose acts indicate -the slightest criminal intent, and the law allows where the act does not establish criminal intention, that the prisoner shall not be sent to prison."

His Honor, continuing, said: "i might make an order upon you either with a sentence or without a sentence, for the payment of costs. I might also make an order for the payment of compensation, not exceeding £100. But to make either of such orders would be idle and useless- I cannot help taking into consideration that not only were you prosecuted for this arson, this foolish, mad act to which you pleaded guilty, but for some reason two charges of theft were included in the same indictment, which the Crown Prosecutor properly did not proceed with, and on which I am quite certain no jury could possibly have convicted. In fact, in regard to one of them, for an amount of £4 9/0, I am surprised that you were committed. The only evidence given of it was clearly only hearsay statements. .As. to the other £30 I am quite certain no jury would have convicted you. I think, therefore, that yours is a case where criminal intention is not proved, but rather disproved, by. the fact that you derived no benefit, and therefore it is a case in which I may commit you to probation. If Ido that there must be a condition attached that you enter into a recognizance with sureties for your good behaviour. The or.der of the Court is" that you be committed to probation for twelve calendar months, on entering into sureties, youVself for £100 and two , others of £100 each, for your good behaviour for twelve months."