ARSON CHARGE AFTER FIRE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 104, 26 January 1935, Page 9

ARSON CHARGE AFTER FIRE

Dunedin Factory Episode

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL

By Telegraph.—Press Association.

Dunedin, January 25.

A sequel to the sensational window smashing episode and fire at the premises of Messrs. A. and J. Watt, Ltd., last Friday night took place in the city Magistrate's 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 £OO, the property of A. and J. Watt, Ltd., and of committing arson, in that he wilfully set tire to the warehouse property of A. and J. Watt, Ltd. Mr. 11. 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, insurance on the whole being £l5OO. The plate-glass windows in the firm’s shop were insured for £lOO/11/-. On January 18 witness was engaged in serving a customer in the shop at about 8 p.m., when he heard a crash of glass. He rushed to the front door, Where he found that two plate-glass windows, one on cither side of the door, had been broken. He saw accused, who was his uncle, in the act of throwing a stone through the second window. Stones Thrown Through (Window. Accused walked along to the corner of Manor Place anti when witness got there he was on the ground with two men holding him. Witness told the men to let accused go, and when they did so accused walked away toward the centre of the city. Witness told one of his men to inform the police, and when they arrived Constable Clarke took possession of three stones that had been thrown through the windows. The damage done to plateglass windows amounted to £6O. Shortly after 8 o’clock that night witness saw smoke coming from the direction of the firm’s factory, add on investigating found that it was in flames. The brigade arrived shortly afterward, but by that time the factory was alight from end to end, in at least two places, one at the right-hand side and the other at the left. Witness estimated the damage at £1865/9/6. As part of the building was saved, he received only £BO9/11/6 from the insurance companies, the loss being approximately £lOOO. Accused had never been a member of the firm, but he had benefited under witness's grandfather’s will t~o the extent of £lOOO, as did another brother and a sister of accused. The business was left to witness’s father. 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. Evidence of the Police. Evidence concerning the arrest of accused was given by Constable Tither, who asked him: “Why did you break those windows in Watt’s shop?” to which accused replied: “Can you prove it?” Witness said; “You were seen doing it.” 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 accused was brought to the detective office he appeared to be under the influence of liquor, but lie was not drunk. He made a statement (produced) in which he admitted setting fbt factory on fire and breaking windows. He alleged that, of the £lOOO left to him by his father, he received only £l5O, and therefore considered that there was £B5O owing to him. He also thought that he should have been more generously treated under his father’s will. “I set fire to the factory and broke the windows because of my grievance against niy own kith and kin,” the statement concluded. Accused was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.