BROKEN ENGAGEMENT AND RETURN OF RING MENTIONED IN COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, 5 November 1949, Page 6

BROKEN ENGAGEMENT AND RETURN OF RING MENTIONED IN COURT

NEW PLYMOUTH, Last Night (PA).—A broken engagement to marry and the return of a ring were mentioned in evidence charging arson and mischief by night against William Henry Arnott," aged 29 years, in the Inglewood Court today. Denying guilt, Arnott was committed lor trial Io the Supreme Court, New Plymouth. Bail was not asked for. There were two charges. The first was, that, on October 28, he committed mischief by night by wilfully setting fire to a car valued at £175, the property of Muriel Jean McCutcheon. The second charge was of setting lire to an implement shed owned by Danzil Alexander Grofski, Bristol Road, thereby committing arson. She had known Arnott for about three and a-half years, said the first witness, Muriel Jean McCutcheon aged 21, land girl. They met in Tauranga and in July, 1947, became engaged to be married. Subsequently, in August, 1948, she moved to Ihe Inglewood district, while Arnott remained in Napier. She was herd testing at the time and using a horse and cart, but accused bought her a truck for which he paid £75. In January. 1949, she and Arnott decided to sell th e truck and purchase a car. The car cost £2OO, of which witness paid £BO and accused the rest. It was registered in her name, but was not insured. In May, 1949, she wrote Arnott a letter breaking off the engagement and sending the ring back. About a week later the accused came to Inglewood and visited the farm where she was working. At. first he said'he had not received either the letter or the ring, but later admitted that he had. Witness described how Arnott had seen her on subsequent occasions, and how he had telephoned her while she was in Napier to ask for the return of presents he had given her. She returned them and he said that either she should pay him what he had coitributed to the cost of the car, or he would pay her back her share. She borrowed £9O from her father and gave this to him, which he accepted as settlement for his share in the car.

She did not hear from Arnott again until October this year, when, after two telephone calls from the accused, she agreed to meet him on October 27 in Inglewood. She then returned him his gratuity books. He asked her to go out with him, but she refused. Later that afternoon she and the accused met Mr. Grofski, owner of the place where the car was kept. About 3.45 Grofski took her car back to the sh"ed and she collected and rode her horse, which had been in the blacksmith’s. About a mile out of town Arnott passed her in a rental car and a little later met her again as he drove back into Inglewood. Witness detailed the personal belongings in the car when Grofski took it away, and said that they were valued at about £32. On Friday, October 28, she had a look at her car. She found it a few feet outside the shed. It was “just a wreck.” The windows were broken, the inside had been burnt out, and there was hardly anything left of her personal belongings. Neither the car nor the things it contained had been insured. She considered that it would take about £l2O to repair the car.

Cross-examined, witness said that the position from May onwards was that, she broke o ‘Tie engagement and he wanted it oi again. During their discussions he had been reasonable and friendly, although perhaps a little upset. She admitted she was keeping company at present with Grofski.