A RECENT FIRE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 84, 6 October 1922, Page 5

A RECENT FIRE

WAS IT A CRIMINAL ACT?

QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL.

Questions as to the admissibility of certain evidence in a. criminal trial were considered by the Court of Appeal yesterday. The Bench comprised the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Salmond, and Mt. Justice Adams. The case was the King v. J. Walkingtoh Smytbe. Smythe stood his trial at Chrisfcchurch last on a charge of arson. After this trial the jury disagreed, but at a new trial on 29th and 30th August' the prisoner was found guilty. Certain evidence as to the dealings with a motor-lorry being admitted, Mr. Justice Adams agreed to state a case, and the questions he referred to the Court of Appeal'for decision were: — (1) Was the evidence dealing with the motor-lorry admissible? and (2) was there any evidence upon which the jury could properly find that, the fire was a criminal fire, and that the accused was the person who set the 1 place on fire? The Solicitor-General (Mr. W. C. MacGregor, K.C.), appeared for the Crown, and Smythe was represented by Mr. W. J. Hunter.

Mr. Hunter eaid the fire occurred at Kaikoura on sth May, and the insurance policy in respect of the house had been applied for on 2nd April. The policy was issued on 4th May, the day before the fire. The occurrence with the motor-lorry occurred on 9th April. On that day Smythe was taking his lorry from Kaikoura to Blenheim. When he reached a very dangerous point on the road he met one Greenwood, and told him that in view of his experiences with the lorry, which had made him very nervous, he had decided not to go on to Blenheim, but to return to Kaikoura. About tea-time Smythe left the camp where Greenwood' and a party of other men were staying, but returned later in the evening with the news that he had met with an accident, his lorry having gone partly over a cliff. A party of other men'returned to the scene of the accident and succeeded in rescuing the lorry. At Smythe's second trial evidence of this accident was used against him, and he was found guilty. Counsel submitted that such evidence was not admissible, as it did not refer to an act identical with that alleged in the indictment. Numerous authorities were quoted by Mr. Huntor, that no man who went into a criminal Court should be called on to answer to anything but a criminal act. Mr. Hunter also contended that there was no direct evidence that the fire was a criminal one.

Mr. MacGregor submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the fire was a criminal one, apart altogether from the evidence of the motor-lorry. In this, as in practically every case of arson, the evidence , was of a circumstantial nature. The case was an exceedingly strong one of circumstantial evidence; there could not possibly be a stronger ease against a man charged with arson. All the facts pointed to the conclusion that Smythe himself set fire to the house with the object of defrauding the insurance company, and it was solely for the jury to conclude whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction. The fact that Smythe had purchased -and insured the lorry on. the sanje lines as he had purchased the house went to show the system on which Smythe was working.

Decision was reserved.