LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8824, 12 March 1892, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings. Friday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.]

Charge of Arson.—Thomas Slator Jones, an elderly man, was indicted on a charge of having, on the 16th of December, 1891, feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously set fire to a certain shop, the property of Thomas Kenderdine, situated in Victoriastreet, with intent to defraud the Royal Insurance Company. The accused was very hard of hearing, and the indictment had to be shouted at his ear. He pleaded not guilty, and Mr. J. A. Tole appeared on his behalf. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. The case for the Crown was opened by the Crown solicitor, and was as follows : —The prisoner occupied a shop in Victoriastreet for a year or two, in which he carried on the business of jeweller and dealer in fancy goods. He insured his goods in the Royal Insurance Company in 1889, for £300, and it was renewed. This policy would expire on the 19th of December, and the fire occurred on the 16th, or just three days before the expiry of the policy. The building was one of a brick block, and Mr. Luks occupied the shop next door to the accused. On the morning of the 16th December, at about five o'clock, Mr. Luks was awakened by smoke, and after examining his own premises and finding that there was no fire there he looked out and saw the accused standing on the iron roof of the verandah of his own shop. He was not giving any alarm, and when Mr. Luks asked what was the matter he gave some indistinct answer, so Mr. Luks took the precaution to send to the Fire Brigade station for assistance, but in the meantime the smoke issuing from the building attracted attention, and the bolls had commenced to toll. The Fire Brigade arrived and extinguished the fire. Detectives Hughes and Kirby arrived, and after satisfying themselves that the fire was ex tin guished, they questioned the accused about the origin of the fire, and his reply was that some person must have placed a match under the door. On examination, however, it was found that there was no fire near the door, and that the seat of the fire was some 23 or 24 feet from the front, at the northwest portion of the back part of the shop, in a back compartment, partitioned off from tho shop, and stocked with light materials. The questions for the jury to decide were, whether there was a fire; whether it occurred by accident or design ; and if by design, who did it? The evidence would show that accused would benefit largely by the fire, and that a large portion of the goods insured, valued at £150, had been recently removed by the prisoner to lodgings which he had taken at the North Shore. The detectives having received information proceeded the same forenoon to the North Shore, where they found the prisoner. He denied having removed any goods, but they insisted on making a search, and found the goods now in court, clocks, vases, eloctroware, jewel lery, etc., which a valuer had valued at £149. The accused also said that he thought the policy had expired, and that he did not know where it was, but on making a further search they found it in a box, and found the receipt for the renewal of the policy in prisoner's pocket when he was searched. There was, the Crown Prosecutor said, no direct proof that accused set fire to the shop—there very rarely was in cases of arson—but the evidence would show that ho would benefit by the fire, and they would prove the removal of the goods, and it would he for the jury to say whether under these circumstances the fire had been caused by the accused. Edward Abercrombie, clerk to J. M. Lennox, house agent, proved that the shop was let to the accused for 15s per week, and there was £4 rent duo at the time of the fire. Mr. K. A. Lusher, agent for the Royal Insurance Company, stated that accused had an insurance of £150 on fancy goods and £150 on jewellery in his shop, and that the policy would expire on the 19th of December, also that a claim had been made by the accused on the insurance company in respect of the fire. Edward Hartley, architect, described the premises in which the fire broke out. It was a portion of a block of buildings, and contained a shop, a sitting-room, and a kitchen downstairs, and three rooms upstairs, and the shop was divided at tho back by a half-glass partition. It was in this compartment, against the back wall, that the fire occurred. The wall was brick, lined with timber. The South British Insurance Company, for whom he acted, paid £65 for damage to the buildings. The lining of the floor and about ten feet of the ceiling were destroyed by fire. He prepared a sketch plan of the ground floor, which he h id prepared from measurements, and this was put in evidence. Detective Kirby, John B. Luks, Mary Carson, Daniel Murray, Martha Hodgkins, Detective Hughes, Sergeant Kelly, and James Stichbury (the valuer who valued the property found in accused's possession at the North Shore) were tho other witnesses examined in support of the indictment. After the case for the prosecution was closed, Mr. Tole asked His Honor whether there was any case to answer. His Honor thought the time had come when he should ask the jury whether they desired to hear Mr. Tole. Of course if so he should not deprive them of that pleasure, but if they were all satisfied that the prisoner should bo acquitted, then it would not be necessary to call on Mr. Tole. The foreman, after a brief consultation with his colleagues, said they were all of opinion that it was not necessary for Mr. Tole to reply, and returned a verdict of "not guilty." His Honor said he quite concurred in the verdict of the jury, although it was a proper case for inquiry. The evidence had been very fairly given, and if it was any satisfaction to the prisoner to know it, his opinion was that he was not only entitled to acquittal, but that he did not set fire to tho premises. However, the fact of the removal of the goods, and that the policy had nearly expired were suspicious circumstances, and made the case a proper subject for inquiry. The prisoner was discharged.

Rights of Pawnbrokers.The Crown Prosecutor said, before the Court rose he was asked to mention the case of a man who had at this session been convicted of stealing a watch. The watch had been pawned for £5, and received by the pawnbroker in good faith, and he would ask His Honor to make an order thab the prosecutor should pay to the pawnbroker some portion of the money which had been advanced before the watch was handed over to him. His Honor said he had no power to make such an order. The Court then rose.