GUILTY OF ARSON.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13175, 6 February 1936, Page 4

GUILTY OF ARSON.

ECHO OF RECENT FIRES.

FIVE YEARS’ HARD LABOUR. Electric Telegraph—Press Association PALMERSTON N\, Last Night. /Arson is one of the gravest offences in the criminal code and the Statutes provide imprisonment for life,” said Hon. Air Justice Blair in the Supreme Gourt at Palmerston North to-day, when imposing sentence o;r five years’ imprisonment with hard labour on Edward Bloomfield McGill, aged 36, a relief work- c er, and Edwin Walter Barringer, aged 40, an electrician, who had pleaded guilty to setting fire to a house at 128 College street and the Alakotuku Hotel respectively. In these two cases the burnings were deliberately arranged, said his Honour, and thp Alakotuku hotel was set alight when there were occupants. There were only three at the time, but there might have been a lot. Had any ot them been killed, the offence would have been murder. According to the evidence, Barringer was not the mail who applied the match or who bored tlic holes, but he knew it was going on and he had provided the means of getting there. It was no use saying that he did not realise his position. He was a ' party to the deliberate burning of an hotel when people were inside, and lives might have been endangered. He was not sure whether it was not a case where lie should impose a long term of imprisonment, but he would assume in Barringer’s favour that there was some element of recklessness or foolishness. •In the Alakotuku hotel case, his Honour proceeded, Barringer said it was McCall who was the other man, but there was no charge against McGill in respect <>i that, and as far as the Court was- concerned, McGill was oharged only with the burning of the Hutchison's place. Had it not been for the inter erence of the police at this house there would have been a firstclass fire. .Jt had been a sir <-essful crime and had been carried out with a knowledge that showed it* was not McGill’s first essay into the realm of firing. His Honour would be failing in his duty if he did not impose a term of imprisonment. He could noi» see that either case had redeeming features, and the sentence of the Court would be five* years'

imprisonment with hard lal each ease.