MAN CHARGED WITH ARSON AND MISCHIEF IN TARANAKI

Grey River Argus, 5 November 1949, Page 8

MAN CHARGED WITH ARSON AND MISCHIEF IN TARANAKI

Sequel to a Broken Engagement P.A. NEW PLYMOUTH, Nov. 4. A broken engagement to marry, and the return of a ring, were mentioned in evidence, during the nearing of a charge of arson and mischief by night, against William Henry Arnott, aged 29 years, in the Inglewood Court to-day. Denying guilt, Arnott was committed for trial to th e Supreme Court at New Plymouth. Bail was not asked for.

There were two charges. The first was that, on October 28, he committed mischief by night by wilfully setting fire to a car valued at £175, the property of Muriel Jean McCutcheon.

The second charge was that of setting fire to an implement shed owned by Danzil Alexander Grofski, of Bristol Road, thereby committing arson.

She had known Arnott for about three and a-half years, said the first witness, Muriel Jean McCutcheon, aged 21, a Land Girl. They met in Tauranga, and in July, 1947, they became engaged to be married. Subsequently, in August, 1948, she moved to the Inglewood district, while Arnott remained in Napier. She was herd testing at the time, and was using a horse and cart, but the accused bought her a truck, for which he paid £75. In January, 1949, she and Arnott decided to sell the truck and purchase a car. The car cost £2OO, of which witness paid £BO, and the accused paid the rest. It was registered in her name, but it was not insured.

In May, 1949, said witness, she wrote Arnott a letter, breaking off the engagement, and sending the ring back. About a week later, the accused came to Inglewood, and he visited the farm where she was working. At first, he said that he had not received the letter or the ring, but he later admitted that he had. The witness described how Arnott had seen her on subsequent occasions, and how he had telephoned her while she was in Napier to ask for the return of the presents that he had given her. She returned them, and he said that, either she should pay him what he had contributed to the cost of the car, or he would pay her back ner share. She borrowed £9O from her father, and she gave this to him. which he accepted as a settlement of his share in the car. Witness stated that she did not hear from Arnott again until October of this year, when, after two telephone calls from the accused, she agreed to meet him on October 27 in Inglewood. She then returned him bis gratuity books. He asked her to go out with him, but she refused. Later that afternoon, she and the accused met Grofski, the owner of the place where the car was kept. About 3.45, Grofski took her car back to the shed, and she collected and rode her horse, which had been in the blacksmith’s, about a mile out of town. Arnott passed her in a rental car, and little later he met her again as he drove back into Inglewood. The witness detailed the personal belongings in the car when Grot's!’ took it away, and said that they were valued at about £32. On Friday, October 28, she had a look at her car. She found it a few feet outside the shed. It was “just a wreck”. The windows were broken, the inside had been burnt out and there was hardly anything left of her personal belongings. Neither the car, nor the things it contained, had been insured. She considered that it would take about £l2O to repair the car. Cross-examined, the witness said that the position, from May onwards, was that sh e broke off the engagement, and he wanted it on again. During their discussions he had been reasonable and friendly, although perhaps a little upset. She admitted she was keeping company, at present, with Grofski.