PRICE FOR THE “BIG JOB”

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 2 August 1933, Page 9

PRICE FOR THE “BIG JOB”

FEE OF £IQQ FOB MURDER

sensational court EVIDENCE

SYDNEY, July 20. In recent years it lias been the boast of Sydney—among thjose qualified to speak with, authority on this subject that as a, city this place is now comparatively (respectable and relatively free from crime. 1 . Firolm time to time events such as the Park horrors and the Rowland murder occur to shatter our self-esteem and even the Marriekville “perfect crime’ suggests that in certain directions the experts of Sydney’is underworld, iUf\e not entirely lost their old pre-eminence. But something happened in Melbourne last week which has suggested both to Sydney gangsters and the Sydney police that after all crime is njgre ally orgalnised in that “fair city of the south. ” A mail named “Backedout” Lanyon was charged with halving unlawfully incited a mail named Quist to set fii'c to his house —either for the purpose of getting rid of his wife, or collecting insurance oil the furniture, or both. Under cross-examination Lanyon admitted that he had given Quiist £5 to set his house alight, but complained that ,Quist had then “backed out” and refused to return the money. However that was a trifling matter compared with what Quist had to tell the court. He stated that he discussed the matter of arson at some length with Liynyton, and that Lanyon told him that lie could get £IOO for setting fire to a city warehouse —£50 down and £SO when the work was done. The conversation then took a definitely business-like form, and Lanyon—according to Quist —produced at scale of charges headed, appropriately enough “Chicago Union,” in which the prices paid for various “jobs” were detailed. For “lighting fires,” the fee was £5; for “knocking a. man rotten,” £10; for breaking an arm, 30s extra; and the “big job”— which Quiist explained meant murder — was “underlined” at £IOO.

lit. is hardly likely that Quist thought aill this out for himself, and considering what Lanyon admitted to the court, it is very probable that the “statement of accounts” was approximately correct. In an,v case there is plenty of material here for both the private' citizen and the guardians of law and order to reflect upon. It is all very well to plnline ourselves upon our supposed superiority to Melbourne ill; matters of law observance; but if isuoli things are possible there it is quite conceivable that something of the same sort exists here. I wonder if our admittedly efficient 0.T.8. officials know more about the matter than they care to toll ns.