CRIMINAL SESSIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9042, 13 May 1915, Page 7

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

WHITE HORSE HOTEL FIRE YOUNG ADMITS ARSON ; BALCH ACQUITTED. The Supremo Court criminal sittings in Wellington were continued yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Mr V. R. Meredith, of the Crown Law Office, conducted th© prosecutions. CHARGE OF ARSON.

The sequel to the fire which destroyed the White Horse Hotel, at Ngahaunranga, on July 19th last, was the the appearance in the dock of Arthur George Young and Walter Batch, charged with wilfully setting fire to the building. Young pleaded guilty, and Baloh not guilty. Mr H. F. O’Leary appeared for Baloh, ana Young stood down while the trial of Batch proceeded. The features of the case were explained to the jury by Mr Meredith, who stated that on July 19th Young ; wna the tenant of the Whit© Hors© Hotel, for which ho paid 30s a week. He was not actually in occupation at the time, because the boardinghouse business at that time Was very slock; but a Mrs Winter was in charge of tho place, running a small shop, and, by arrangement, if there were any profits from the building, Young was to receive half of them. On the Saturday. Mrs Winter left to stay in town till the Monday, and a notice waa left, on tho door intimating that tho occupier would not bo back for some little time. On the Sunday night tho building was burned down. Tho furniture had , been insurodj and Young received £220 from tho insurance company' as a result of tho fire- Young, Baloh, and a man. named Charles Edmunds wore arrested in connection with thd destruction of tho hotel. Edmunds pleaded guilty to the lower court, and was now undergoing sentence, for tho crime. Tho first witness called waa Thomas M. Wood, captain of the Fire Brigade at Ngahauranga, who stated that tho fire evidently originated to tho centre of the building, near the staircase.

Richard John Penticost, a grocer, of .Island Bay, stated that Young was living with him at. tha time or the fire, and Balch and Edmunds were frecment visitors to hia place. On' the night of July 19th the three men left,together: Subsequently, in a con--1 vorsation at which Balch was present, witness was told how the three, set the hotel on fire. Balch* on another occasion, said that, if it had not been, for him, - tbo place would not have been burnt, aa Young became frighten- - od > A DOMESTIC DIFFERENCE. In answer to Mr O’Leary* 1 witness said that ho continued on friendly terms with the three men, after "bo had heard about the fire. Young had lent fri-rc £BO. and thomonoy was still owing. 'Witness’s' wife loft him in February, and he blamed Balch for it. Witness chad no recollection tor. saying ho would perjure himself to “put Balch up.” - ‘ Montagu Fritz Rowlands, brether-in-law of Pentioost,' stated that _ Balch hod ’ told him about the burning of the hotel, and had said be had a part Edmunds gay© evidence on the linos of his admissions in the lower court. He said that, before the building was sot on fire, Balch went outside, Young hairing told him to watch. Arthur George Young, who was called by Mr O’Leary, stated that there was no mention of burning the hotel down until the three men reached the building. Witness made the proposaJ, and iho that Balch, when ,he heard it, said it was no good to l him, and left. Balch was not in the hotel when witness and Edmunds were retting it alight. , . . Questioned, by Mr Meredith, the witness said that Balch and Edmunds knew nothing of the proposal to set fire, to the hotel until they reached the place. _ ■ BAIL’S STATEMENT. The accused Balch, in his evidence, said that he went to Ngahauranga at the instance of Edmunds and Young. When; on arrival at the hotel, he heard the other two talking about the fare, ho said to Young “This is no good to me. 1 won’t, have anything to do with it.” Thar® was no truth in the statement that ho went outside to keep a watch. He bad not previously heard any statements that the place was going to : bo burned down. Witness left the building and commenced to walk home. As he was walking along the road, Edmunds caught up to him and said, “We got some Backs, put them in the cupboard under the staircase, and poured paraffin on them. ' Then we went to the room adjacent to the staircase, set it alight, and walked out.” Witness asked Edmunds where Young had gone,' and he replied, I( He has gone over the railway lines.” Edmunds' also remarked, “A bottle of paraffin I What is the good of that? If it had been two tins, I would have made a syiod job of it. Young was nervous." Witness walked on with Edmunds for •tune distance, and then saw the blaze. Balch. denied having taken any part in setting fire tothe hotel. He added that he did not remember discussing the matter with Penticost. _ ; When being cross-examined, Balch said that Mrs Penticost was not living with her husband, and he (accused) got the blame for it. For that reason, he alleged, Penticost had spoken falsely against him. “I know they were going to put this up,” ho added, “because previously to my arrest, penticost had said to customers at Island, Bay that he would commit perjury." Hia Honour: "Did you hear him?” Accused: “No, I did not hoar him.” ■His Honour: “Well, you should not say it.” > ' . After a short retirement, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. Thomas Dagnoll was charged with having indecently assaulted a female child aged three years and one month, at Wellington, on February 13th last. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr H. F. von Haost. The care was not concluded when the court rose for the day. Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, May 12. At the Supremo Court to-day charges of supplying means to procure miscarriage were made; against Bertram Bunn, 'flio offences were alleged to have been committed on eight occasions between July 21st and September 30tb. 1914. The hearing extended into the evening. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. William George Maslhi was acquitted on a charge of indecent exposure in Christchurch Gardens.-