ORIENTAL HOTEL FIRE

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 November 1933, Page 3

ORIENTAL HOTEL FIRE

TYLER SENT FOR TRIAL. QUESTION OF INSANITY Fire-damaged bedding was exhibited in the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, yesterday afternoon, when, appearing on remand, Ralph Albert Tyler, 2a, was charged that, on October 27, at Greymouth, he did wilfully set fire to bedding in a cottage at the Oriental Hotel, knowing that the cottage was likely to catch fire, thereby attempting to commit the crime of arson. The charge was laid, under Section 330 of the Crimes Act, 1908. Mr. T. F. Brosnan appeared for accused, and pleaded not guilty, adding that the question of insanity would be raised.

The S.M. pointed out that the offence could not be dealt with summarily. Detective-Sergeant Holmes stated that he proposed to take the case m the ordinary way, of committal for trial or sentence.

Lemon James Manthorpe, licensee of the Oriental Hotel, Greymouth, stated that attached to the hotel . premises there was an eight-roomed cottage, with concrete foundations, brick and rough-cast outer walls, lined with wood, scrim and paper, and having wooden floors. Four rooms on the south side were used as bedrooms, and were fully furnished. Witness did not know accused, but had previously seen him once, on the night of the fire. On Friday, October 27, he saw Tyler about 9.40 p.m. with some wharf labourers who came in for “crib.” Accused went right through to the back-yard, from which the cottage could be reached. Accused had no right'to enter the cottage. Witness saw him re-enter the hotel about 10 minutes later, and leave by the front door, on to Richmond Quay. No one but accused went into the back-yard at the time. Soon after witness let accused out of the front door, he heard the fire-bell, and the brigade arrived at the hotel. Until that time, he had no idea there was a fire in the cottage. He accompanied Deputy-Superintendent White to the cottage, and found two rooms on fire. The flames could not have spread from one room to the other. The goods damaged by the fire consisted of curtains, the bedding on three beds, three mattresses, and other bedding to the value of about £3O. The wallpapers were also damaged. Had it not been for the brigade, the cottage would have been destroyed. To Mr. Brosnan: The two back gates led into Johnston Street. One was locked at night, and the other fastened with wire. On Friday evening, witness saw the gates about 6.30 or 7 o’clock, and they were then secure. He inspected the cottage every night, and was in it on Friday evening between 8 and 9 o’clock. No one was there at that time. He inspected the cottage to see that no one was there. Three or four windows opened on to the street, and someone might get in through the window. He did not see accused in the cottage. To the Detective-Sergeant: The windows were battened, so that they could only be raised about six inches from the bottom. He was present when the police inspected the windows next morning. They were in their usual condition, except that two had been pushed up, so that the burning bedding could be got out. The gate fastened with wire was still secured in the morning.

Superintendent Patrick Deere, of the Greymouth Fire Brigade, stated that, at about 10 p.m., on October 27, a fire-call was given by the ringing of the bell at the Central Station. The fire was at the Oriental Hotel cottage, but witness did not see the person who gave the alarm. Witness and Fireman Blocksage entered the cottage by the front door, which had been opened from the inside. The beds were on fire in two of the rooms, and the flames had a good hold. The cottage would have been destroyed but for the arrival of the brigade. The fire might have been burning for half-an-hour before the brigade’s arrival, but the time would depend on the draught. The fire could not have been accidental, unless there were persons in each of the two rooms. The partition was not burnt through. To Mr. Brosnan: He did not know who opened the cottage door, but fancied it was a man named McPherson. Some wharf labourers came out of the door. It was impossible to say whether the burning beds had been occupied. To the Detective-Sergeant: He knew some of the wharf labourers who left the cottage. It was about their “crib” time.

Recalled by the Detective-Sergeant, Manthorpe stated that the wharf labourers were having “crib” in the hotel kitchen. When the knock came at the front .door, they went out at the back, through the cottage. To Mr. Brosnan: Witness closed the entrance doors to the cottage, and the bedroom doors, when he inspected the cottage. ACCUSED’S STATEMENT. Constable MacDonald stated that, about 10 p.m. on October 27, he went to the scene of the fire. After witness left the cottage, accused came up to him, and said, “I was passing, saw the smoke, and gave the alarm.” Witness asked whether, he actually 'sounded the alarm, and accused replied that he did. Witness took his name and address. After the fire was out, accused was invited to the police station, and he then made a written statement. Witness saw no signs of drink on accused. He spoke quite freely, and normally, and did not appear excited or agitated. As he was leaving he said, “I reckon old Shandy should stand me a couple of drinks for finding this!” and added, in a joking manner, “I hope if you saw me in there, you will shut your eyes to it.” Witness thanked accused for going to the station. He was with witness from about 10.25 p.m. to 10.45 p.m., and appeared quiterational all the time. Accused was not suspected of having started the fire, at that time.

To Mr. Brosnan: He had never previously seen accused. Detective-Sergeant Holmes stated that, in consequence of enquiries made on October 28, he interviewed accused. and informed him that, he was suspected of setting fire to three beds in the cottage. Accused denied that he had been at the hotel before the fire; also that he had set fire to the beds. In a little while, however, he admitted that he lit the fringes of the counterpanes on the beds in two different rooms. He was given the usual warning, and then made a statement, which was typed. Accused read it carefully, initialled an alteration, and signed the statement. About. 9 a.m. on October 28, witness inspect-

ed the scene of the fire. The mattresses appeared to have been burnt along the outer edge; he produced a sheet, which was a fair sample of how the mattresses were burnt. Accused was a patient at the present time on probation from a certain. institution. ‘When witness interviewed him, accused had no difficulty in concentrating. He gave intelligent replies to questions, and to witness, as a layman, he appeared quite normal.

To Mr. Brosnan: He had not previously had a conversation with accused, but had seen him about the streets. He was in possession of a telegram from the superintendent of a certain institution, to say that Tyler was on probation until July 17, 1934. That institution dealt with mental diseases. Tyler had been on probation for about a year, and prior to that was an inmate of the institution. Witness got the statement from accused first, and, as a result of something he was told, had Tyler medically examined later in the day. Mr. Brosnan: Have you the doctor’s report? “I have,” replied the Detective-Ser-geant, “but it is not for publication.” Mr. Brosnan: What is the- procedure required to. make that available to his Worship?—'Permission has to be obtained from the officer in charge of the Police Department at Wellington. If a certain defence is put up before a jury, there is no doubt that the doctor will bo called. Did the doctor form any opinion as to what his condition may have been when the alleged offence was committed?—That would be purely hearsay, and would be encroaching on a document which I am not at liberty to disclose.

Did the doctor make any reference to that?-—Reference is made. Did the doctor suggest that he might be sent to that institution, for further examination? —I am afraid I cannot go into that, Mr. Brosnan. I have not got permission to disclose the consents of that document.

The Detective-Sergeant intimated that the case for the prosecution was closed.

“UNFIT TO PLEAD.”

‘‘l submit that he is not capable of making a plea, at this stage,” said Mr. Brosnan, when accused was formally asked to plead. Counsel drew the S.M.’s "attention to Section 37 of the Mental Defectives’ Act, 1911. Under that section, the S.M. could secure the evidence of Dr. McKillop, who was in charge of the institution where accused had been an inmate for seven years prior to this year. “Evidence is before you that he is on probation until July next year. It is rather a pity that the medical report which the police obtained is not made available to you. I suggest that your Worship should see that report, before coming to any decision on this matter. I had anticipated that the report would be put in. Under Section 37 of the Act, there is provision for a person who is in confinement awaiting trial, being placed under observation, if necessary or expedient that his mental condition should be observed. I suggest that your Worship should remand him, and that appropriate steps should be taken to have him placed under the observation of Dr. McKillop. Later, when his report is available, the matter could proceed. There is really no evidence against accused, apart from his own statement, and that, under the circumstances, is evidence that should be looked at with the greatest care and scrutiny.” Mr. Brosnan referred to the weakness of the evidence before the Court, and said it was quite obvious that all other persons had not been ruled out. The mere fact that Manthorpe made periodical inspections of the premises, in case someone were there, showed the extreme danger of resting the solely upon the statement of such a person as accused unfortuantely was. He submited that the appropriate course was to remand accused, and steps could then be taken to have him medically observed. The Detective-Sergeant said that the section under which accused was released from the mental institution was Section 80. Any person out on leave under those conditions did not come within the provisions of the section referred to by Mr. Brosnan. The procedure which would be followed from now would be taken so that the matter would come within Section 31 of the Act. A report would be forwarded by the police, and the necessary observation would he given to accused when he got to Paparua Prison. When the case came on at the Supreme Court, if the defence of insanity 'were put forward, the matter would not be decided by the jury. The S.M.: I think the proper course, on the evidence, is to commit him for trial, and then, w’hen he is awaiting trial, the Minister of Justice may order him to be put under observation, and, if necessary, remove him to a mental hospital. Ido not think I have the power to order that myself. It is a matter for the Minister to order it. Accused reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Greymouth. The Detective-Sergeant asked for an order committing accused to Paparua Prison, for the convenience of the Sunnyside authorities, and this was granted by the S.M. Mr. Brosnan asked that an order be made for accused to be kept apart from other prisoners, until the Minister s decision was known. The S.M. stated that the prison authorities would no doubt see that was done..