CHARGE OF ARSON

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22018, 26 January 1935, Page 12

CHARGE OF ARSON

FIRE IN FACTORY * SHOP WINDOWS BROKEN MAN'S ALLEGED GRIEVANCE EVIDENCE OF DETECTIVE [by telkgkaph—pib;ss association-] DUNEDIN", Friday A sequel to a window-smashing episode and a fire at the premises of A. and J. Watt, Limited, last Friday night took place in the City Police Court to-day when Henry Watt, aged 39, pleaded not guilty to charges of committing mischief by wilfully breaking two plate-glass windows, valued at £6O, the property of A. and J. Watt, Limited, and of committing arson in that he wilfully set fire to a warehouse, the property of the firm. Mr. H. W. Bundle, S.M., was on the Bench.

Alexander Bedel Watt, manager of the firm, stated in evidence that last Friday night there was a considerable amount of unfinished furniture in the factory, the value of the building, plant, machinery and stock in trade at the time being £2300. Of that amount £872 represented the value of the stock-in-trade, The total insurance was £ISOO. Plate-glass windows in the firm's Bhop were insured for £lO6 lis. Heard Crash of Glass Witness said he was engaged in serving a customer in the shop about 8 p.m. when he heard the crash of glass. He rushed to the front door, where he found that two plate-glass windows, one on either side of the door, had been broken. He saw accused, who was his uncle, in the act of throwing a stone through the second window. Accused walked along to the corner of Manor Place and when witness got there he was on the ground with two men holding him. Witness told the men to let accused go and when they did so accused walked away toward the centre of the city. Witness told one of his mjyn to inform the police and when they arrived Constable Clarke took possession of three stones that had been thrown through the windows. The damage done to the plate-glass windows amounted to £6O. Shortly after eight o'clock that night, witness continued, he saw smoke coming from the direction of the firm's factory and on investigating found that it was in flames. THe brigade arrived shortly afterwards, but by that time the factory was alight in at least two places, one at the. right-hand side and other at the left. Witness estimated the damage at £1865 9s 6d. As part of the building was saved he received only £BO9 lis 6d from the insurance companies, his loss being approximately £IOOO. Benefits Under a Will Accused had never been a member of the firm, said witness, but he had benefited under witness' grandfather's will to the extent of £IOOO, as did another brother and sister of accused. The business was left to witness' father. Accused appeared quite rational when witness saw him after the breaking of the windows and did not appear to be under the influence of liquor. Evidence concerning the arrest of accused was given by Constable Tither, who said he asked him why he broke windows in Watt's shop. To this accused replied, "Can you prove it?" Witness said, "You were seen doing it." Accused then said, "I did it and I will do 'clink' for that crowd." Witness took him to tho detective office. Accused gave the impression that he was labouring under a grievance. Detective Russell said that when accused was brought to the detective office he appeared to be under the influence of liquor, but was not drunk. He made a statement (produced), in which he admitted setting the- factory on lire and breaking the windows. He alleged that of £IOOO left to him he received only £l5O and therefore considered that there was £BSO owing to him. He also thought that he should have been more generously treated under his father's will.'

"I set fire to the factory and broke the windows because of my grievance against" mv own kith and kin," the statement concluded.

Accused committed to the Supreme Court for trial.