BOMB ON STEAMER

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 278, 19 August 1932, Page 12

BOMB ON STEAMER

Foolishness Realised MOUNCER’S EVIDENCE Jury’s Verdict of Guilty REMAND FOR SENTENCE By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, August 18. Found guilty by a jury of putting an explosive substance on the steamship Tees with intent to do bodily harm to Albert Baldwin Anderson, George Thomas Mounter, 37 years of age, a native of England, was remanded for sentence. When the hearing was resumed today Detective Laugeson gave evidence on the lines of his evidence in the lower court. He said that in a statement to the police Mouncer admitted making the bomb and placing it on the Tees. Accused Gives Evidence. Mouncer, giving evidence on his own behalf, admitted, putting the bomb on the Tees. He constructed it with a view to making it look very effective, but it was quite safe. He had decided to “put the wind up” Anderson because of past treatment. He had had a lot of experience with bombs, and had. made them on Gallipoli ahd in France. The bomb he put on the Tees could not be effective. The spring was too weak to detonate the cap. The striker was really a toy when compared with a real striker. Witness made several tests with the striker and the base of cartridges. Witness removed the padding from the cartridge and left only a small card disc. The effect of this would be that the powder would ignite but merely fizz away. The powder, unless compressed, had little or no explosive effect. There was no explosive in the trials witness conducted. Witness now realised that it was a foolish thing to do. Continuing, Mouncer said that he wanted Anderson to think he had had a narrow escape. He put on the striker in order that Anderson might hear it click. It was a dummy bomb. The Crown Prosecutor: In your statement you told the detective that it was a live bomb. Witness: I told him I only Intended to scare Anderson. The Crown Prosecutor: But to-day is the first time it has been suggested that it was a harmless dummy bmb? —“I answered the detective’s question.” His Honour: What time did you put the bomb there?—“About 1 a.m.” You told the detective first that you knew nothing about the bomb. That was an untrue statement? —“Yes, it was untrue.” Did. you say in the second statement, “I knew that if it had exploded it would have blown Anderson up”?— "Yes, I did.” Counsel then addressed the jury. Question of Intention. Summing up, the Chief Justice said a man’s intention had to be judged by his actions and his statements at the time of the occurrence. “I hope it will be a long time before juries in British countries will tolerate lightly the sending of an explosive substance to a person in any such manner as has been done in this case,” he stated. “All I mean is that you must consider carefully the question of intention on the part of the accused.” Until to-day no explanation had been given by Mouncer of the affair, and it could be suggested that the explanation as given was an afterthought. ■ The jury’s verdict of guilty was accompanied by a rider to the effect that more strict precautions should ne taken in the care and distribution of gelignite and explosives generally. His Honour said he would Instruct the registrar to forward the rider to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Internal Affairs. Mouncer was remanded for sentence till Tuesday.