ALLEGED ARSON.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 112, 13 May 1910, Page 3

ALLEGED ARSON.

THE WANGAWJI CASE. THE JURY DISAGREES. The hearing of the charges of arson arising out of the fir© in the Rutland buildings, Wanganui, against Joseph Paul Davis and Martin Haines, was concluded in the Supreme • Court yesterday. Accused were jointly charged on separate, counts with conspiracy and attempt to defraud two insurance companies of £1000, whrio Davis is indicted on two separate counts with procuring Haines to set fire to the building, and with aiding Haines u> escape knowing he had set fare to the building. Mr. Myers prosecuted, and Mr. Wilford defended the accused. Malcolm Stewart, auctioneer, Nelson, eaid he had seen Davis in his employer's (Mr. Besley's) office. Davis said he would bring in some goods for sale in a few days, and that he would send an agent to look after the goods when tnesale was taking place. Ihe gooas came in to the auction rooms, on 18th January. The four exhibits in the court were the packages which Davis had delivered at the auction rooms. It had been stated by Davis, when the question of insuraaco was mentioned, that the goods were worth £350. That did not include tte value of a bag of watches which was put in a safe. Witness was given to understand that more goods were coming; when Davis's agent arrived. Davis gave instructions to have the goods adverti&ed for sale but not in his name. The goods were insured for £200 for one month. On the 21st January tin* goodb were claimed by the police. To Mr. Wilford -. Davis gave his own name. He did not go under an alias. Re-examined by Mr. Myers: Davis stated that his principal place of business was 142, Lambton-quay. A BOX OF GOODS. Frances Merlino said she carried on a restaurant with her husband, in Nelson. In January last Davis came to witness a place of business and asked her to recommend to him an auctioneer. He also asked if he could have permission to leave a box. Witness gave permissioii, and the, box was left. Subsequently it was given to the police. Shortly alter it was left Davis said he was going to Wanganui. On the 2nd of February witness's husband received a letter from Davis stating he. had arrived safely in Wanganui, asked her to say nothing about the box an dlo destroy the letter (which, she did). SOME EXPLANATIONS. Sergeant Burke stated that a police officer was in charge of the premises wher«s the fire occurred right up to the time the place was boarded up. When Davis was asked why he had concealed tho goods in the attic, he said that he "did not want any one to see them" and ho was sure "the insurance people would not mind." The book (produced) Haines admitted was a shop book, and he explained its presence in the Arcadia by saying that two sets of books were kept turn about each week at the shop. When witness arrested the accused, and charged him with counselling Haines to set fire to the premises, he said he did not know Haines had anything concealed in the attic. A few hours previously Davis had said the goods found in the attic were some he had had on the West Coast, and some he had in his own room. A SLIGHT "BREEZE." \ Witness was about to relate another statement made by the accused Davis to him when Mr. Wilford asked if the man was then under arrest. Witness : Yes. Mr. Wilford : Then I ask your Fon our to rule that any statement made by the accused is not admissible as evidence. His Honour said the witness was simply giving the accused an opportunity to explain a discrepancy in previous statements. If he did not want that counsel could have it ruled out. At the same time he did not uphold the contention that a statement made under these circumstances was not admissible as evidence. \ Mr. Wilford : Then I say it is evidence. I have no desire to keep out accused's statement. His Honour : Be kind enough to sit down. Go on with your examination, Mr. Myers. Mr. Wilford : May I make another application? His Honour : Not just now. AN EXPERT OPINION. Dr. Maclaurin, Government Analyst and Chief Inspector of Explosives, said he had. heard all the evidence, and examined the premises. It was his opinion that the explosion lad been caused by some light oil, such as petrol or benzine, being distributed over the goods. His reasons for coming to this conclusion were that a gas explosion did not readily ignite light goods. A gas explosion, would not cause such, a largevolume of fire in such a short time as this explosion did. Again, it would have been impossible for sufficient gas to have escaped as to cause such a big explosion. The explosion could not have been caused by dynamite or gelignite. HIS HONOUR'S SUMMING UP. After counsel had addressed the jury his Honour summed up at length. He «aid the case was an important one. The offence alleged, especially where human life was endangered, was a very serious one. He explained the various counts in the indictment, and went on to refer to the suggestion that there had been an escape of gas. The lights were burning all the time they were required, and if the jury believed Mr. Stone's evidence there could not possibly have been any escape of gas worth mentioning up to 10.30 p.m. Even if the pipe was entirely severed in the shop the quantity of gas that would have escaped between 10.30 and midnignt could not possibly have caused the explosion. \t the utmost only 270 ft could have escaped. Mr. Stone said 600 or 700 ft would be required to cause an explosion ouch as that which actually took place. Dr. Maclaurin said the explosion was caused by some inflammable oil being scattered over the goods. As Haines was in the shop till 12 p.m., it was for the jury to say who did it. His Honour asked the jury to say whether Davis's statement that no goods had been taken away was true. Why were the goods secreted in the attic of the Arcadia? Were the explanations of the accused consistent with the actions of honest men? Why had Davis said the goods he was sending to N.elson were of so small a value that they were not worth insuring, and valued them at £350 when they got to Nelson? Why had the case been left at Merlino's, and why had Davis written the letter asking that nothing should be said about it? Then Davis, when asked why ne had secreted the goods in the attic, said ne did not want anyone to see them, and that the insurance companies would not mind. A little later he abandoned this, and said that he was not aware that Haines had secreted anything. What did the jury think of this? If the transaction was not an honest one, why had the goods not been left in the accused's room? His Honour also referred to the explanation of the accused concerning the books. The desk on which the books were said to have been left was not destroyed, yet no trace of the books was left. The book (produced) which contained a complete record of sales frtim November w.aa

found in a parcel in the attic in. the Arcadia. Why was it removed? " It would be seen ,from the evidence that' accused Davis was in- great financial! trouble in December. JURY DISAGREES. Afier an absence of four hours the jury returned to the court, and the foTeman announced that there was no possi-, biiity-of an agreement being arrived at. The new trial will take place on Monday. Mr. Myers wished to have it take place at once, but Mt. Wilford said he had been instructed from Wanganui, and did not know whether he would -be defending the accused a second time.,