THE FORT-STREET FIRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12267, 11 May 1903, Page 6

THE FORT-STREET FIRE.

SOMMERVILLE ADMITTED TO PRO-

BATION.

REMARKS BY MR. JUSTICE CONOLLY.

David Sommerville, lately a clerk in the employ of Messrs. John Reid and Co., merchants, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of arson laid against him in connection with the fire at that firm's premises in February last, was brought up for sentence before Mr. Justice Conolly at the Supreme Court on Saturday morning. Mr. J. O. Martin, who appeared for Sommerville, said he had nothing to add to the facts which had already been placed before the Court.

His Honor, addressing Sommerville, said he did not think he had ever had a case in which ho had had more difficulty in arriving at a conclusion than in this case. The accused had pleaded guilty to setting fire to the office of Ids employer, which was a very serious offence. The peculiarity of the crime of arson was that it was almost always due to one of two motives — to the motive of gain, as when a man insured his house or property above its value and then burned the house down, or to the motive of malice, as when a man set fire to the house or property of another person against whom ho had somo ill-feeling. In the present case, however, there was a total absence of both these causes. It was quite certain that if accused had succeeded in his attempt to burn the building and the books it could not, so far as he (His Honor) could see from the evidence given in the lower Court, have benefited him in the slightest degree. The only thing was that accused's accounts had got into a terrible state of confusion, but that pointed more distinctly to ignorance of accounts and book-keeping on the part of accused and others employed than to any criminal intention. Mr. Wildintr. the accountant engaged to examine the books, had stated in his evidence that he found that at the time accused took over the books they did not balance by £375, and that at the time of the fire they did not balance by £3000. Out of this latter sum, however, more than £2000 was accounted for by errors in additions. It was a most extraordinary thing, and it showed incompetency more than dishonesty, for if accused had burned the whole building and books he could have gained nothing by it. On the other hand, there was not Hie sliehtost evidence of any malice against Mr. Reid. Whether competent or incompetent, Mr. Reid appeared to have been satisfied with accused, as ho said the cash accounts were always found correct. Mr. Reid had said he was unable to understand why he (Sommerville) did nor report the state of the affairs to him. The only suggestion to be found was that accused was afraid that if it was shown what a muddled state his accounts were in he would be dismissed. That was the worst that could have happened. His Honor said he could not conceive why accused, if he was in his sober senses and his right mind, and answerable for his actions, should try to burn down the building. It seemed more the act of a lunatic than of a sane man. Looking at it in that light, he was bound to say in accused's favour that there was nothing to indicate a criminal mind, and that therefore he ought not to be treated as one who had acted with criminal intent. The law allowed him, when criminal intention was notestablished, to say that a person should not be sent to prison. He might make an order, with or without a sentence, for payment of costs or of compensation, not exceeding £100. but any such order would be both idle and useless. He could not help taking into consideration the fact that not only was accused prosecuted for arson—for that foolish, mad act —but for some reason two charges of theft were included in the same indictment. The Crown Prosecutor, very properly, did not proceed with these charges, on which it was certain no jurv could havo possibly convicted. In regard to one of these charges the only evidence was based on hearsaj* and it was surprising that there had been a committal in regard to it. As the case was one in which criminal indention was not proved, but rather disproved, it was one in which probation might, be granted, but accused must enter into a"recognisance with sureties for his future good behaviour. Accused was admitted to probation for 12 months, subject to his entering into a bond, self in £100 and two sureties of £100 each, for his good behaviour for that period.