INCENDIARISM.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2631, 13 October 1909, Page 2

INCENDIARISM.

CASES AGAINST O’SULLIVAN. WITNESS DENIES PREVIOUS STATEMENT. The charges of incendiarism against William Patrick O’Sullivan, aged 15, were proceeded with at the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., Mr. G. Stock appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. ’On the conclusion of the evidence with regard to the fire at the Gisborne Rowing Club’s boat-shod, the accused was committed for trial. Evidence was then called in regard to the fire that broke out at the old drill-shed, in Customhouse Street, on September loth. Percy Bayly and John Stewart gave similar evidence as in the case against Foster. Thomas Francis Foster, who pleaded guilty on Monday to five charges ol : incendiarism. and was committed to Wellington for sentence, then went into the box. Witness said lie told the accused that if he- would come with him they would set the drill-shed on fire. They went there' together, and the witness pulled the mattress over to the wall, and struck a match while O’Sullivan piled up paper for him to light. They then separated. Sergeant Hutton stated that after his arrest the accused denied having been concerned in the drill-shod fire, and said to Foster, “You’re trying to put this on to me too.” Foster replied. “You were there.” Constable Scott, who was present when the- accused and Foster were charged, said that lie heard a conversation between the lads in the cell. The accused said. “Oh, well! You put my pot on, didn’t you?” and when Foster didn’t answer, remarked, “I’ll have to put up with it now.” The accused was committed for trial, pleading not guilty. A surprise was furnished by Foster’s evidence in regard to the fire at Mr. Tharratt’s stables, in Childers Road, on September 18th. When he entered the box after other witnesses had given an account of the outbreak, he stated that O’Sullivan was* not with him on that night. “I lit that fire myself,” he added. Sergeant Hutton: You said in your statement that O’Sullivan was with you. Witness: I was frightened into it. His Worship: What do you mean? Witness: I didn’t know what I was doing. Mr. Stock: How much of the story that you told to the police on the night you were arrested was true? Was any of it true?—lt was true with the exception of the fire at -Tharratt’s. Did you volunteer the information to the police, or did they get it out of you by questioning you?—Well, they questioned me» a lot. Witness added that he was excited and did not know what he was saying when he made the statement about the fire at Tharratt’s stables.

Mr. Stock: It was one continuous statement. How was it you were excited- about that lire and not about the others? Counsel then read the witness’ statement, which contained a very circumstantial account of his doings with O’Snliivan on the night in question. His 'Worship: How do ;f:,P account for sy_cli tl statement as that? Witness-: It wasn’t true. Mr. Barton said that in this case u' wfl» obvious that the accused must be discharged.

.!!’.* in> respect to the outbreak in St. Marv’s Schoolroom, on September 24th. was then proceeded with. Some of the. witnesses-who had given evidence against Foster on the previous day were again called, and Foster in addition gave evidence as to O’Sullivan’s complicity in this fire, and that at the Masonic Hotel, By Sergeant Hutton: The accused was with the witness in the gaol last night. O’Sullivan had not threatened the witness.

Has he told you what to say ? —No. Did he say he Was going to deny anytiling?—l think he said he was going to deny one or two of them or somethin" like that. Did he suggest what evidence yon should give?—No. Mr. Stock: As a matter' of fact, ho said he was going to deny all the nres. Didn’t he?—Not to my knowledge. Is the evidence you have given today as true as what you told the Sergeant?—l’m speaking the truth dayvVho was it suggested setting the Masonic on fire?—l did. Then it was not true when yon told the Sergeant that O’Sullivan suggested it?—No. Other discrepancies between the statement and his evidence were pointed out, which the accused accounted for by saying he was excited at the time. Mr. Stock: Who was it suggested going into t'he school?—I don’t know. What did you tell the police?—l forget. When you told them O’Sullivan said "Let’s go in and set the map on fire,” was it true? —I don’t suppose it was. I’y Sergeant Hutton: He was quite sure the accused was with him in the school, and that they both set fire to the map. Sergeant Hutton gave evidence to the effect that aftjr the accused’s arrest on September 24th, lie searched him and found a greasy handkerchief and a box of matches in his pocket. His bands were discolored, and the witness subsequently found a burn on the lad’s coat three or four inches long. When charged next day, O’Sullivan said to Foster, “You wish to blame me for these too. I was with you at the boating-shed, but not at the others.” Foster replied, “You were with me.” By Mr Stock : The grease stain on the handkerchief might have been cart grease, and the burn on the coat could lie accounted for by it having been carelessly put too near a fire to dry. Constable Seott corroborated the Sergeant’s evidence. His Worship intimated that he would not call upon Mr. Stock to reply. After the admission of the witness Foster

that part of his statement was untrue, it cast a doubt on the whole of his evidence, and no reliance could be placed on it. The accused in the St. Mary’s Schoolroom case must certainly bo discharged. Sergeant Hutton intimated that he would offer no evidence in regard to the fire at the Masonic, and the charge also was dismissed. Bail in the, two cases on which O’Sullivan was committed was fixed at £IOO.