ALLEGED ARSON.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 116, 17 May 1901, Page 4

ALLEGED ARSON.

THE WAIKINO FIRE, i

ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TltlAE,

(By: Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

... - -WAIHI, Thursday. The charge against Williams of ar. son at Waikino was continued this afternoon. Miss Hill deposed that she was in the employ of accused ia! his shop for four weeks prior to thfl fire. She had been receiving £1 p c , week. She left the shop at 6.30 o'clock on the evening of the fire in company with accused, who closed the shop and gave her the key. They then went, for a walk, and returned to the fruit shop next door to Wil« liains. She remained in Ihe shop and Williams went into his own shop after she had handed him the key, He then returned and gave her a book (produced), and told her to taka it home. . He did not tell her to make jup the accounts. She used to tak« the book home herself. The boole (produced) was not the one she used to. take home; it was an exerei^ book. Two. books were kept, an ejc« ercise book and the one just. prp. duced, There were no other bookj kept by the firm. She never saw. an invoice book, and never saw a ledger other than the one produced. Xeve* saw a day-book. These books. could not possibly have been in the shop without her knowing it. After they (witness and accused) left the shop they walked to Lever's. This was about 7.15 p.m. This was where she resided. Williams remained in he* company till a quarter to. 8. He did not mention anything about the bbsi< ness. Witness retained the key till she handed it to the police. "Wit. ness kept his accounts, but she did not understand book-keeping Witness repeated what took place previous to the fire, as stated before the coroner at the inquiry, but a<], mitted having sworn falsely beCau&b Williams had begged her not to sajj that he had gohe back to the pre» mises a second time. She was no^ speaking the truth. - Cross-examined by Mr Haslett:' Witness admitted having underesti. mated the value of Williams' stock, as stated in her examination in chief, She was not ■ aware. that accused stated in his evidence at the inquiry that he had gone back to the shops second time. Her estimation of tlifl gross ta~kings per week was only a guess. The examination of this wit* ness took up the whole Witness was also cross-examined by. Mr Haslett at considerable length. Other witnesses"''who have already given evidence., at the inquiry are tii be examined. • ,> WAIHI, this day. !■ , The case was concluded this morning-, exhaustive evidence being taken, and accused was committed for trial. He reserved his defence. Peter Danie.l Meßae stated, in his evidence, that he saw accused two hours . after the fire. Accused said, "I believe you were the first who saw the fire. I am being blamed fop it." Williams was fully dressed. Wit* ness had just discovered the fire, w Thich was in the corner of accused's shop. He was of opinion, from whaV he saw, that the shop had bjeen set oil: fire. He would not have given more than £20 for what was there. Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr. Haslett. James William Har* per also gave evidence, and Mrs. Harper corroborated the greater part of this evidence. Ralph Montgomery deposed that the buildings belonged to his father, for whom he was agent* George Maberly, agent for the Im* . perial Fire Insurance Company, de* posed he took a risk on the stock foC £200. "[