FARMERS’ TIMBER.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 3 November 1925, Page 2

FARMERS’ TIMBER.

BURNED AT' IvAKARAMEIA. ANOTHER ACCUSED ACQUITTED. The timber firing case at Ivakaramea took an interesting turn at the Court on Saturday, says the Wanganui Herald, when a witness in the case yesterday, John Minogue, was charged on or about August 13, 1924, he did destroy a quantity of timber valued at £24 by wilfully setting fire to it on the property of Phyllis Josephine Wills. Detective Gouiiay said that a man named Jensen had leased a iarm from one Reardon at Kakaramea. He got into dilficulties and went away to work, but later came back to Kakaramea, and worked for one Chamberlain. in the meantime Wills had pulled down the whare built by Jensen on the farm, and it was this timber thajt Jensen had admitted hiring. Chamberlain was told by Jensen that he had burned the timber, but he, Jensen and the accused, when interviewed by Constable, Armour, of Patea, denied all knowledge of. the affair. Mrs. Wills gave formal evidence regarding taking over the farm previously occupied by Jensen, and that the timber was burned. Chamberlain said that he instructed Jensen to cart the timber for Wills, but had no conversation with the accused about it. After the fire accused told him that he had nothing to do with it-, and that he sat on the road while Jensen went in and applied the match. - ‘

Thomas Christian Jensen gave similar evidence to that, given yesterday. In August, 1924, he was asked by Chamberlain to cart, some timber for Wills, but he did not do it. the night of the fire accused add witness went to the back and procured a bottle of kerosene. Accused held the lantern while witness filled the bottle. They went to Kakaramea, and on their return entered Wills’ farm. Accused poured the kerosene on the timber and witness applied' the match. About three or four days afterwards Chamberlain, witness and accused were interviewed by Constable Armour. Witness denied all knowledge of the fire. The morning after the fire witness told Chamberlain that they had burned the timber. He replied, “You can trust me. I will not say anything about it. ’ They all agreed then not to say anything about it. To the Magistrate: He admitted that at Waverley on September 16 he was convicted ,of false pretences, also that on October 14 he was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence on a charge of forgery and uttering. Constable Armour said that when interviewed accused denied all knowledge of the fire, but admitted that he had been on the road that night on his way to Kakaramea.

The magistrate (Mr. J. S. Barton) said that in this case it depended entirely on the evidence. of an accomplice, who was committed for sentence. The rule was that the evidence of an accomplice was admissable in court, but the evidence of an accomplice was always dangerous and must always be received with the utmost caution. This rule had been carried further in the courts at Home in the case of Bex v. Beebe, of July 6. 1925, when the Judge said: “Where the evidence against a prisoner is uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice the Judge must warn the jury, while they may convict on such evidence, it is always, not generally, dangerous to do so. It is wrong for the Judge to tell the jury that if they are quite certain in such a case that the accomplice is telling the truth they ought to act on it.’’ In the present case the magistrate said that he was quite certain it would be wrong to send the accused to the Supreme Court. The case depended on the evidence of an accomplice, which was in conflict with other witnesses. Jensen had admitted that he had told a lie and that he already had two other charges against him. He (the magistrate) was certain that the Judge would tell the jury it was their duty to acquit the prisoner, and lie now considered it his duty to dismiss the information. Accused was then acquitted.