GUILTY OF ARSON

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 87, Issue 38, 16 February 1943, Page 6

GUILTY OF ARSON

LABOURER JONVICTED FIRE AT WANGANUI EASK RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY. After a retirement of three hours a jury in the Supreme Court, Wanganui. yesterday, returned a verdict of guilty, a strong recommendation to mercy, in the case of Norman Charles Williams, labourer, aged 56, charged before Mr. Justice Smith with arson. The case was a sequel to a fire which partly destroyed a dwelling at Wanganui East early on the morning of January 2. The hearing was begun yesterday morning and was concluded late in the afternoon. Ten witnesses were called for the Crown.

The jury retired at 4.55 p.m. and returned with its verdict at 7.55 p.m. Prisoner was remanded for sentence. Accused, for whom Mr. H. M. Keesing appeared, was charged with wilfully setting fire to a dwelling at 12 Nixon Street, thereby committing arson.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. N. R. Bain, conducted the case for the Crown.

The jury consisted of the following: Messrs. A. R. Donaldson (foreman), L. Reardon, F. L. Armstrong, R. E. Vincent, L. Greenside, W. G. Turner, A. J. Howes, W. I. Osborne, R. Carpenter. W. S. Dearness, A. E. Couchman, and T. Rosser. Crown Case Opens. In his opening address to the jury, Mr. Bain said that at the time of the fire the occupants of the house were accused’s wife, his four children, and his mother-in-law (Mrs. Rowe), aged 79. The alleged time of the fire was 2.30 a.m. Evidence would show, Mr. Bain added, that for a number of years the home had not been a very happy one because accused was a heavy drinker. It was also alleged that he had frequently threatened to lake the lives of his wife and mother-in-law. About the middle of December accused returned to Wanganui after working in the country and at the instigation of his wife a summons claiming maintenance allowances was served on him. Evidence would also show that accused’s habits had become so bad, because of his drinking bouts, that the occupants of the house were forced to ask him to sleep in a shed at the rear of the house. It would also be stated in evidence that on December 31 he slept in this shed and that the mattress was subsequently taken out because accused had spilt beer on it. The mattress was not returned to the shed.

On the night of January 1 Mrs. Rowe retired to bed early, but rose about midnight to admit the three sons. Earlier in the evening a daughter returned home for the holidays. Mr. Bain added that evidence would also be brought to show that Mrs. Rowe was awakened at about 2.30 a.m. by the dog “Punch” barking, and by footsteps and a noise in the wash-house. She became suspicious and soon after heard a hammering on the front door and a voice she recognised as accused’s say: “I have got you now —Mrs. Rowe then noticed smoke in the house and roused the occupants. The dwelling was badly damaged by fire, and furniture to the value of £2OO was destroyed. The Crown also alleged, said Mr. Bain, that the dog “Punch” never left accused’s side. Two of the neighbours would also give evidence that they knew the dog and heard it bark early on the morning of January 2.

When interviewed by DetectiveSergeant J. J. Murray, accused denied going to the house at 12 Nixon Street on January 1 or 2, but in a subsequent interview said that he did go there for a short time on the evening of January 1, but finding the mattress missing thought it had been burnt and subsequently went to a red shed in the Wanganui East Esplanade and remained there till daybreak. Alleged Threat. The fist witness called was Lydia Rowe, widow, 12 Nixon Street, who said the house in which she was living was owned by the State Advances Department. She was the tenant and her daughter, Ethel Williams, who was married to accused, and family lived with her. Referring to threats made by accused, witness said accused declared that “he would get her.” “He said old age would cut no ice with him. He said he would get me when I least expected it and would not hang for it, either,” said witness. After being awakened early on the morning of January 2 she heard a banging on the front door and thought she smelt smoke. She recognised acused’s voice and rushed to a front window and saw him leaving the premises. She heard accused say: “I have got you now, you and your old mother! I have got you all trapped.” Cross-examined by Mr. Keesing, witness said that when sleeping in the shed accused was free to come into the house, but not to sleep because she could not endure his language. On one occasion she locked the shed, but he broke the lock. Accused had been drinking heavily and witness ordered him off the premises in December. She had seen empty bottles in the shed.

Gwendoline Linda Williams, waitress, Palmerston North, and a daughter of accused, said that when her father lost his temper he often struck her mother and grandmother. He had often threatened to take her mother’s life and to burn the house down. On the morning of the fire she heard hammering on the front door, and her father’s voice. He was using abusive language. The house was well alight and smoke was pouring into the hall from the kitchen. The occupants left in their night attire. After the fire she saw empty beer bottles in the shed, one cf them being half full. “Went Nearly Mad.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Keesing, witness said drink had been her father’s chief trouble and when drinking he went nearly mad. Mr. Keesing: In view of all the circumstances you would be pleased to see your father out of the way for a while? Witness: Yes, I would.

Alter further cross-examination Mr. Keesing asked: “You would not mind rubbing it in if you could?”

Witness: Do you think that is quite fair?

Mr. Keesing: Why did you bring in the question of your father borrowing money from you in Palmerston North? That had nothing to do with the fire.—“l was asked if he had borrowed money from me.”

Evidence of friction in the home was also given bwKenrick Norman Williams, a son cv accused.

She knew accused by sight, but not personally, said a neightbour, Genevieve Margaret Ingram, married, 10 Nixon Street. Witness added that she had heard accused using bad language. Early on the morning of January 2 she heard the dog barking next door and also foots eps. Another neighbour, Mahle Daisy Lints, married. 14 Nixon Street, said that on the morning of January 2 she heard loud knocking on the door of No. 12 Nixon Street, followed by quick footsteps. Gave the Alarm. When driving along Anzac Parade early on January 2 he saw the reflection of a fire, said William Charles Lionel McAr.hur, lorry driver, employed by the Model Dairy, Ltd. Hr went to Nixon Street, saw the loca-

tion of the lire, and subsequently gave the alarm from a street box at Luxford’s Corner, Wanganui East.

Cross-examined by Mr. Keesing, witness said he did not see anybody come out of 12 Nixon Street. Superintendent N. M. Ross, Wanganui Fire Brigade, said a call was received at the Central Station at 2.47 a.m. on January 2 to an eight-roomed wooden dwelling at 12 Nixon Street. When the brigade arrived the occupants, in their night attire, were on the lawn in front of the building. The fire started in the wash-house close to the tubs, but witness was not able to ascertain the cause of the outbreak. The fire was so far advanced that any evidence as to its origin would have been destroyed.

Evidence of serving a summons for maintenance on accused on December 18 was given by Constable S. F. Best. Accused spoke abusively of his wife and said: “The old she won’t get a penny out of me!” With Constable C. Dudley he started investigations on the morning of January 2 into the cause of the fire, said Detective-Sergeant J. J. Murray. Accused, when interviewed, said he was in town on the afternoon of January 1 drinking with another man. He denied going to No. 12 Nixon Street that night and said he had slept in a red shed in the Chinese market gardens. The shed was eight ■chains distant from the house in Nixon Street. When first seen by the police accused had a black and white sheep dog named “Punch” with him. He denied having threatened his wife and mother-in-law. Accused also said his companion of the previous afternoon spent the night in the red shed with him, but when interviewed by the police this man said he left the shed at about 2.20 a.m. and could throw no light on accused’s subsequent movements. When arrested on a charge of arson, accused made no reply. Accused Interviewed. Detective-Sergeant Murray added that on January 4 accused said he wished to alter something he had stated when arrested. Accused was warned that he need no make a statement, but persisted and said that on the night of January 1 he returned to No. 12 Nixon Street to sleep in the back shed, but could not find the mattress. He remained outside a window for a time and heard voices, after which he went to the red shed in the market gardens and remained there till 6.30 a.m. Accused also claimed that the dog “Punch” was in his company all day on January 1 and remained with him all that night. Henry Herbert Tait said he was with accused in town on January 1 and early on the morning of January 2. Before they parted company in the red shed, at about 2.30 a.m., accused said, in answer to a question, that he had a bad head and was not going home. Case for the Defence After Mr. Bain had briefly addressed the jury, Mr. Keesing, who did not call evidence, said a mass of detail had been produced by the Crown, but the jury must disregard allegations of accused’s excessive drinking. It was not for the jury to say that he required some sort of supervision. If such a step were necessary there was a proper way of going about it. The jury must consider whether the Crown’s evidence was sufficiently strong against accused. The Crown must prove beyond doubt, before a conviction could be entered, that accused’s actions were wilful and that he had formed criminal intent with a full realisation of the consequences of his action. The only evidence of accused being in the locality at the time of the fire was that Mrs. Rowe and her granddaughter, who said they recognised his voice. Mrs. Rowe also stated that she recognised accused’s form, but could their evidence be accepted? The jury might disregard the evidence of identification and it was quite reasonable to assume that a stranger could have caused the dog to bark. Otherwise,, why would the dog bark? Counsel submitted also that accused had never been propertly treated at home. The jury must also ask if accused, after Tait left him at 2.30 a.m., had sufficient time in which to deliberately set the house on fire. Another aspect for consideration was that accused could have accidentally started the fire, in which case he could not be found guilty of arson. His Honour, summing up, reviewed the evidence and explained that the word wilful meant that a person knowingly intended to set fire to the dwelling. If the jury had any doubt about that accused was entitled to be acquitted, but the term wilful must be properly understood and interpreted. Referring to the question of drunkenness, His Honour said that Unless this evidence was such that it satisfied the jury that accused did not know what he was doing, they must treat the case as if accused had had no drink at all. Cross-examinaticii had shown that some witnesses for the Crown were not favourably disposed toward accused and apparently he had not been supporting his wife.

“If you believe the evidence of the old lady and her grand-daughter, then the conclusion is pretty clear that accused was there at the time the fire broke out, and that he knocked at the front door and said he had ‘got. them.’ The question of drink and his statement to the police must be interpreted in the light of that,” His Honour added. “If you don’t believe that evidence you have nothing before you but threats and the case for the Crown is not proved.”