Community Contributed

ALLEGED ARSON AT LEVIN HOTEL. THE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Kete Horowhenua2020-03-23T16:53:55+00:00

Report from the Evening Post of 14 Aptil 1899:

From the Manawatu Farmer's report of the proceedings in the charge against Thomas Sidey of wilfully setting fire to the Levin Hotel on the 31st March we make the following summary:-

D. Hannan deposed that he was licensee of the Levin Hotel, and took it over from Sidey about four months ago. Sidey occupied No. 3 room m the hotel on 31st March, and that day he with two others called for drinks, but witness refused to serve them on account of accused's conduct towards witness's wife that afternoon. Sidey said, It appears evident that I am not wanted in the house," to which witness replied in the negative, and then sent O'Leary, his man, for Sidey's portmanteau, with which he returned in about five minutes. Sidey then went upstairs. & few minutes, after witness heard an alarm of fire given. He rushed upstairs, and as he was going up he met Sidey coming down. The fire was in No. 3 room, which was considerably damaged.

To Mr. Young (for accused)— There was some evidence of fire on the floor. Did not hear Sidey ask "What's up?" as he came down the stairs should say he was perfectly sober.

Thomas Butler corroborated a great deal of Mr. Hannan's evidence, and said it was not possible for the curtains to catch alight from a candle standing on the chest of drawers. Sidey was generally affected with a violent temper when under the influence of drink.

Cornelius O'Leary said that when he went with accused to No. 3 room Sidey struck a match and lit the candle on the chest of drawers did not see where he threw the match. He then helped him to pack his portmanteau, which he (witness) afterwards brought down, but before doing so shifted the candle on to the wash handstand. (Witness at this point became somewhat confused in his statements.) While witness was in No. 3 room heard Sidey say that he would be even with Mr. Hannan over some private business.

To the Bench- Was quite sure that he (witness) was not smoking when he went upstairs.

Cecilia Hannan (daughter of the licensee), who discovered the fire, deposed that she was outside and saw Sidey at one of the upstairs windows, and shortly afterwards she noticed the fire, which was three rooms away from the one at the window of which she had seen Sidey. When she saw accused going out immediately after he was not smoking.

Constable Abbott stated that when he arrested Sidey the latter immediately denied the charge, and said "If I did it, it must have been when I was blowing out the candle." Accused said afterwards that he could only account for it by the lighted candle setting fire to the curtains.

Edward Burke gave evidence that he saw accused on the railway platform on the 31st, and overheard him say "I'll let them know to-night whether the £1200 was a put up job or not." Sidey was with Mr. J. Ryder and two others when he made the remark.

Maggie Sugure, housemaid at the Levin Hotel, saw Sidey in the hotel about 6 o'clock, and heard him say as he was coming along the passage that he would "burn the ______place down"; heard him use the same sentence a few minutes afterwards. He may have been angry, as he had had a few words with Mrs. Hannan; thought that he was perfectly sober Anne Emeny, cook at the hotel, corroborated the evidence of last witness.

Thomas Sidey, in his evidence, deposed that on the evening of the 31st he had difference with Mrs. Hannan over the payment of some money for tea. At the station he heard the remark which Burk, said he (witness) uttered, but denied ever having said the words. "Before leaving the hotel I did not utter the words that the witnesses Sugure and Emeny said I did, but I did say that I would smash up and burn the boat which had been in dispute." After the words with Hannan witness said it did not matter as he was leaving that evening. Asked Hannan to get his man to fetch the portmanteau, which he asked O'Leary to do. O'Leary and witness then went upstairs to pack it they were both smoking. After the bag was packed O'Leary asked me if it was any use waiting, And I said 'No.'

O'Leary then proceeded with the bag downstairs. After he was gone I stopped to look for a book I had been reading. Afterwards lit my pipe by the candle and left the room and went downstairs. It is untrue that I was ever in a front room. Was about half way down the stairs when I was met by Mr. Hannan and others. I asked 'What's up?' but received no answer. Went on to the door, where I was told that there was a fire somewhere. Went out in the street, but could not see any fire. I had a pipe with me when I was arrested."

To Inspector Pender Am a man of violent temper. Am in a muddled slate sometimes through drink. Think that four of the witnesses perjured themselves. See no reason why Miss Hannan should give the evidence she has. Was annoyed at Mrs. Hannan throwing up the matter of the boat before a lot of people in the bar. Deny that I used the words said by O'Leary. I did not run upstairs when the alarm was given, but went into the street. Have been unfortunate concerning fires have had four fires in my time, but they have been accounted for. I admitted to Constable Abbott that the fire might have occurred through my not blowing the candle out.

To Mr. Young- Did not benefit by insurance from any of the fires that had resulted in other places. Had several books in the hotel that represented £300 or £400 worth of accounts; meant to take them away.

John Ryder, sworn - Remember driving Sidey to the railway station. Did not hear Sidey say anything in particular while there. Did not hear him say I'll let them know to-night whether £1200 was a _______ put up job or not."

Robert Wylie gave evidence similar 'to Ryder's. Walter Gardener and two other witnesses said they heard Sidey say he would burn the boat, but did not hear him say anything about the house. Mr. Stanley, solicitor, also stated that in conversation Sidey had said he would burn or smash the boat.

Both Inspector Pender and Mr. Young addressed the Bench (Messrs. Stuckey and Levy, Justices), the. former stating that if the Bench dismissed the case it would be on the evidence of witnesses who had committed perjury.

The Bench said there was a great deal of conflicting evidence, and ultimately, as already reported, dismissed the case.