SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 208, 17 August 1927, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

NAPIER QUARTERLY SESSIONS CHARGE Ofc ARSON FAILS. TWO BOYS FOUND GUILTY ON MINOR COUNT. The sitting of the Supreme Court in Napier was resumed to-day, when Mr. Justice Ostler again occupied the Bench. On the indicted charges of alleged arson and wilful mischief against two boys, John Clarence Hallam and WinSton Joseph Reilly, the accused pleaded not guilty, and were not represented by counsel. Mr. j. Molding, on behalf of the Crown, carried out the prosecution. The following jury was impanelled: Messrs. G. W. Keeble (foreman), J. D. Campbell, H. J. Hill, F. W. Brewer, Arthur Bullock, S. J. Pointon, A. J. B. Cuff, H. A. Westerholm, J. ft. Stevenson, A. H. Burr, R. W. Parker, and H. D. Stevenson.

In outlining the facts of the case, Mr. Morling explained that according to a statement from one of the accused, a lighted candle was used in their operations in the warehouse of Raymond Horn & Co., on July 12th. This had been left in a cupboard. Later ono of the boys went back and blew out the candle, but threw a lighted match on the floor, and was not sure but what this match had not set fire to the buildings. When the boys returned home the firebcll rang, and one of the boys was alleged to have said, “There goes Horn’s.” The accused proceeded to.the fire and watched the operations of the brigade. The Crown submitted that ohe or the other of the accused deliberately set fire to the building, either with the of covering up their tracks or as an act of desperation and disappointment Ln not making a big “haul.” If the jury did not see fit to return a verdict of guilty oh arson it had a minor charge of mischief, which Mr. Morling explained to the jury. Evidence was given by Raymond Horn, Superintendent Riddell, and Senior-Detcctivi Butler, the last named reading a statement given by one of the boys who expressed himself satisfied that they weOr responsible for the fire, but contended that if was not intentional.

The accused, in a brief statement from the box, stated that they had been home an hour before the firebell rang.

After a retirement of just over twenty minutes, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the second charge, that of mischief. His Honour intrimated that at the conclusion of the hearing of Ihe criminal cases, he would pronounce sentence.

After retiring for the full four hours, the jury returned at 7.45 p.m. yesterday and reported that it was unable to agree on a verdict in the case in which James Thomas White was charged with an offence against a girl at Greeniiiendows. A new trial was accordingly ordered.