GELIGNITE EXPLOSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20722, 15 November 1930, Page 13

GELIGNITE EXPLOSION.

man feeling depressed. ALARM AMONG NEIGHBOURS. ALLEGATION OF THREATS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] NELSON. Friday. An explosion at Stoke recently had a sequel in the Magistrate's Court to-dav. John Albert Corbett was charged with setting off gelignite so near to a publie road, Railway Road, Stoke, as to endanger passers-by, with procuring gelignite without a permit, and with the theft of two plugs of gelignite, 30 feet of fuso and two detonators, tho property of the New Zealand Government. Accused pleaded guilty to the first two charges, but not guilty to the last. His counsel submitted that Corbett was charged with two offences, theft and procuring without a licence, for tho same act and asked the magistrate to take that fact into account.

Senior-Sergeant Butler said that until recently accused had been tho proprietor of tho hotel at Stoke. On tho day in question residents near Corbett's place were alarmed by an explosion. They went to investigate and found defendant preparing to set off another plug of gelignite. Defendant had been drinking and told tho police that he intended to blow himself up. Corbett also threatened to blow up a neighbour who camo to see what the noise was. ' Counsel for accused stated that until Corbett became a publican he had been a respectable citizen. In the hotel business he had lost money and as a hotelkeeper ho was not a success. Ho had been put off the Public Works at Poor Man's Valley as the work had been completed and at times was in a morbid state of mind. As Corbett had beer in gaol since Tuesday counsel asked the magistrate to give a chance. Tho Magistrate: What was his object in setting off the gelignite ? Counsel: He was feeling out of sorts with the world.

Tho Magistrate: Was ho trying to blow up the world ? Counsel suggested that a prohibition order or other restrictions on accused's behaviour would bo in the best interests of the man.

On the first charge a fine of £l, with costs, was imposed. On the second defendant was convicted and admitted to probatiou for two years, a special condition being that he take out a prohibition order.