BROKEN WINDOWS

Southland Times, Issue 22490, 26 January 1935, Page 5

BROKEN WINDOWS

SENSATIONAL EPISODE MIDDLE-AGED MAN IN COURT MANAGER’S EVIDENCE (Per United Press Association.) Dunedin, January 25. The sequel to the sensational window smashing episode and fire at the premises of Messrs A. & J. Watt, Ltd. last Friday night took place in the City Police Court this afternoon 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 Messrs A. and J. Watt, Ltd. and of committing arson in that he wilfully set fire to a warehouse, the property of Messrs A. & J. Watt, Ltd.

Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., was on the Bench.

Alexander Bedel Watt, manager of the firm, stated in evidence that on the night of January 18 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 insurance on the whole being £l5OO. The plate-glass windows in the firm’s shop were insured for £lO6 11/-. On January 18 witness 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 the accused, who was his uncle, in the act of throwing a stone through the second window. The 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 the accused go and when they did so the accused walked away towards the centre of the city. Witness told one of his men to inform the police and when they arrived Constable Clarke took possession of the three stones that had been thrown through the window. The damage done to the plate-glass windows amounted to £6O. Shortly after eight o’clock that night witness 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 from end to end. It looked as though the fire had started in at least two places, one at the righthand side and the other at the left. Witness estimated the damage at £1865 9/6. As part of the building was saved he had received only £BO9 11/6 from the insurance companies, the loss being approximately £lOOO. The accused had never been a member of the firm, but he had benefitted under witness’s grandfather’s will to the extent of £lOOO, as did another brother and sister of the accused, while the sister received some additional property. The business was left to witness’s father. The 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. Statement by Accused. Evidence concerning the arrest of the accused was given by Constable Tither, who asked him: “Why did you break those windows ir. Watt’s shop?” to which the accused replied: “Can you prove it?” Witness said: “You were seen doing it.” The accused then said: “I did it and I will do clink for that crowd.” Witness took him to the Detective Office. He gave the impression that he was labouring under a grievance.

Detective Russell said that when the 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 fire and breaking the windows. He alleged that of the £lOOO left to him by his father he had received only £l5O, and therefore, considered that there was £B5O owing to him, and he also thought that he should have been more generously treated under his father’s will.

“I set fire io the factory and broke the windows because of my grievance against my own kith and kin,” the statement concluded. The accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.