INCENDIARISM CHARGE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20225, 1 May 1931, Page 3

INCENDIARISM CHARGE.

new trial ordered. v: ■ .•••>.. ♦. ■ , •. ■« • i JUIiY '.fXils TO AGREE. (3PUCIAX, TO THE PBZSB.) ' I ,i:' J TIMARU, April 30; 1 After, a retirement lasting four .hours, the jury empanelled for the hearing of .the case in wKich William Watson, of Temuka, was- charged with wilfully setting fire to tlie Parish Hall, Temuka, returned to ; Court without having reached an agreement. An application for a new trial was granted. This will take place at next session of the Supreme bourt* in Timaru. " His Honour Mir Justice Adams was on the Bench. ' The Crown case was conducted by Mr W. I). Campbell. Mr E. J. Anderson, of Dunedin, with Mr G. J. Walker, appeared for the accused. When the Coutt resumed, Constable j Southworth gave evidence regarding the 1 fire. A bottle, which had contained kerosene, was found near the hall, and there was a strong smell of kerosene on a ma? outside the door. In company with; Detective Studholme, witness went to accused's hut and returned with him to the Police : Station. As they were going into the station .accused said: "You want to see me about a fire." Nothing had been' said to lead,-the accused to make this- statement. -Witness saw the accused at 3 a.m. on the morning, of the fire. He was under thd influence of liquor, but was; not- drunk. Under cross-examination,, witness said be was not prepared' to • say-the fire was the result of kerosene,' but from, oily substance -of Dhe nature of kerosene. Witness was able to. distinjguiah. between the smell of kerosene- and* other mineral oils such as petrol or> methylated spirit. This concluded the case for the Crown. ; Mr Anderson said that he did not prpposo to call any evidence for the defence. . .. ■ Addressing tho jury, Mr \ Anderson thanked the Cr Qwn Solicitor 1 for the fair .manner in which ho had presented the case. The evidence for. the Crown was purely, .circumstantial, and the only proof against the accused was inference. There was nothing whatever to connect the accused with the cringe with •which he was charged. Further, there was a complete absence; of motive. The jury had to consider the. complicity of the man Fisher. No .charge had beon laid against him, and; yet he had undoubtedly been with thfl accused on the night of the fire. His Honour: Why was-Fisher not called? ■ Mr Campbell: We could not ,connect him with the crime. His Honour: But he could have given evidence to support his claim that ho was not connected with the offence. Summing lip," his Honour said that the evidence was circumstantial, and this ; was always open" to criticism. The .fact .had. to he proved, and, as counsel for the defence liad, said, the. jury required more than suspicion before it could return a, verdict of gniltly. The kerosene, however, was bought in the ■,e,arly hoiiris _.d'f 'ostensibly 'JbrCtfce found ihat he had tao lamp. It would' I he*seen, >thttt - the evidence was purely 'And.'the ' jury" had 'to consider ■owefully all- the fa«ta. ;of-tW casij'"before eoming tb" any decision. - . • ' The question of bail was held over pending tho Judge's interview with', the bondsmen.