CHARGE OF ARSON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12241, 9 April 1903, Page 7

CHARGE OF ARSON.

gEQTjEL TO TH* NEWMARKET FIRE. /: . PECULIAR EVIDENCE. THE QUESTION OF INSURANCE. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. .. Police Court yesterday, before Mr. „ Hutchison, S.M., John Hamilton was brown* "P to answer a charge of wilfully etiiDß fire to a dwellinghouse at Newmar- . ket oa March 17, the property of James Gannon. Chief-Detective Grace conducted the prosecution, Mr. J. C. Martin appearing for the defence. James Gannon staled that he owned the iouso in Morrow-street named in the charge, go let it to the accused some two or three wars ago at 5s 6d per week. Witness save accused verbal notice to quit two o. throe times. Being anxious to get him out of it be told him he had sold the house. Accused told witness ho was not insured. To Mr. Martin: There was a colonial oven in the house let to accused. This had bars and hobs to keep the fire from falling off the top when witness let it to accused. He' had asked accused about three months » 0 whether his furniture was insured. He could not say the precise date. He had asked the question because lie had heard that insurance men had been seen going there. The neighbours told witness that accased had not £7 worth of furniture in the house, hut he didn't bother as long as accused was nut insured. . Margaret Estali, a widow, residing in Jlorrow-street, deposed that on the afternoon of March 17, hearing Mr. Hamilton's house was on fire, she rushod out into the street and saw accused coming out of a house in the same street a few doors higher up. She told him his house was on fire. Ho took it very quietly, and went to the house with her, but did not seem to hurry. Accused unlocked and opened the front door and followed witness inside. She went right into tho kitchen, where she noticed that the coiling was on fire. There was no fire in the kitchen fireplace. Witness left the house when she saw it all ablaze and accused followed her. Tc Mr. Martin: Witness did not notice any ashes in the kitchen fireplace. All tho furniture she noticed in the kitchen was a squaro table by the window and a chair. Aunio Keenan, a married woman, stated that at the time of the fire she resided next door to accused. She lost all she had by the fire. On the morning of tho 17th accused drove out with his family, and she saw him return between two and three o'clock in the afternoon. Ten minutes after accused returned to his house it was ablaze. On going out she saw accused coming leisurely down from Patterson's, where ho had boon for some "salt for his steak." Witness said to him, "You've done it, boss, and done it well, and now you've got mo to deal with." A day or two before the fire witness had a conversation with accused, regarding a man named Mundy who wanted accused's house, during which the latter said. "When I'm done with the house he (Mundy) shall never put foot on a board of it." There was £3 4s worth of second-hand furniture in accused's house. Witness had seen the bill for it. She heard accused say to his housekeeper after this furniture was delivered, "Now you have got it, and if you are cute enough you can make £80 out of it." To Mr. Martin : Accused called on witness when he took the house, and she told him to his face that ho looked a suspiciouslooking character. Mr. Martin: Did ho look like ho does now ? Witness: Ho looked more respectable then. Mr. Martin: You don't seem to like him very much. Witness: Oh, I fall in love with him every

day. Mr. Martin: You swear that on. your oath? Witness: No, I do not. I withdraw that. (Laughter in Court). Continuing under cross-examination witness said she could not remember the date of her conversation with accused about Mundj. John Keenan, husband of ths last; witness, said he was sorry from his heart to say he knew l the accused, for lie was tho -worst, specimen of the human raco ho had ever seen in all his travels. His Worship : Yet your wife falls in love with him every day. You Irishmen always £ay too much. " ■ Witness deposed to conversing with the accused, who asked him if he knew the man Mundy. Witness said lie did not, and accused then said that when ho had done with the house Mundy should never set loot on a board of it. Annie- Howell, a married woman, said she resided in the same street as accused at the time of the fire. Sho saw accused drive boms on the afternoon on March 17, and about 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour after saw him coming up the road to Patterson's. Mary Miller, a married woman, also a resident of Morrow-street, deposed that in December last she visited accused's house. It was very poorly furnished, and she would not value 'the things at much. To Mr. Martin : She told tho owner of the house she would not have given £3 foi tho furniture in it. To her mind tho thought that Hamilton had £150 insurance on tho furniture was pretty conclusive that he had St the house on fire. John McColl, contractor (Mayor of Newmarket), stated that he was a sub-agent for the Commercial Union Fire Assurance Company. In September last the accused told him, he ■wanted to insure his furniture for £200. Witness saw the furniture in the two downstairs rooms and declined to issue a policy. • , " Geo. Holmes, sub-agent for the Standard Insurance Company, said that in December the accused tried to insure his furniture through witness. His application was not entertained. Accused applied later on several ■ occasions. On seeing the furniture through the window of the house witness decided'not to accept a proposal. James Cahill, sub-agent for the Guardian Insurance Company, spoke to accused, approaching him for a similar purpose in October and signing a proposal form (produced). This proposal contained a question as to whether the applicant had been refused insurance by any other company. Witness put this question to accused, who answered it in the negative. Witness saw tho furniture, but did not make an extended examination of it. He was in a hurry. Accused said it would not pay him to have it insured for less than £150, and a policy was issued for that amount. Witness went through Ike house with accused by candle-light, and they stood at each door, the 'accused telling witness what tho rooms contained. He suggested to accused that £150 was rather high value for the goods. To Mr. Martin: When witness first saw accused the latter did not mention any amount, Witness could have made any inspection ho chose of the furniture. He partially filled in the proposal form after tho inspection. The words "A hundred and *% pounds"— amount insured— not in witness' handwriting. On looking at the Proposal form he said that only the date and address were in his handwriting. When accused signed the proposal it was blank except 'or these entries. 1 His Worship commented upon the peculiarity of this proceeding. Mr. Martin : Yes ; especially , when tho Word "no" in reply to a certain question in |wb proposal form is offered as evidence of fraud. Witness, continuing, said he could not remember whether he first wrote the entries »a pencil at accused's house. Tho figures - £150," written over the pencil entry, were m in after the proposal form left witness hands, Ho did not fix the sum of £200 as Wing the value of accused's furniture. Mr. Martin, turning to the back of the Proposal, showed that such an estimate of the value appeared there above the -witness' «?!iature. Witness said the entry was not in his writing nor authorised by him. The signature °* his own name was not written by witness JW done in his office. He did not value m furniture at £200, and could not say mother ho told anyone in the insurance company s' office that "that was its value. His company did not care to insure up to full value. One hundred and fifty pounds would 08 about the proportion they would insure ■ nwmture valued at £200. -Re-examined, witness said Mr. Gilfillan, * clerk in the insurance office, might have 3 m d up l «° proposal form at his dictation. nA 0 / 1 ' 3 Worship: If it should turn out «at £200 was put down a3 the value ot the - wnituro at witness' dictation, that was witness opinion of its value at the time. I ' d David Bruce Gilfillan, clerk in the Guar- - ,'* n . Insurance Company's office, deposed to | lvi ng the proposal of accused through the SOT Oahill. Witness filled it in with *;»»'»« assistance before it went to theaoI H'i Witness issued a policy on that pro- « 4 in Ootobei' last. On March 25 last ggHftd called and told witness his house had BW Burned down, and that the policy had § fi!! n octroyed. Witness asked him how the M originated, and be replied that he was >io» 8 ?°, D ? e meat and left the house to go 1U a neighbour's for some salt, and found the

i said 1 n tff T V ls return - Accused also n!-« I. h *l d - lo3 i aboufr £20 in cash - Witform fill the necessary "proof of loss" XJ? fi l^ p and he did this and brought "S Witness produced the document in ;l +i, ? e Questioned some of the items m the proof of loss when accused brought it,™.,? April £ On the same day witness learned that the policy was in existence, but accused did not tell him so. r.n-o 0 ! c " ¥ ar 1 tin: Calliil brought the proposal form back signed by the accused. He told witness he valued the furniture, after nspechng it at £200. The agent's report at rill lack 1 - °J tho Koposal was filled in at oaliiU s dictation by witness, who also signed wl, "m, o "nf- He could not remember why The whole of the words on the front oi the document except tho date, address amount, and signatures were filled in by brnnX I ?? fore , he gaV ,° »* to Cahill, who brought it back completed. wSS'lHci: The " amount claimed for "llliam Field, fire surveyor, stated that he "™ ed f th0 I deb of the fire and described what he found remnants .° Witness asked accused how the fire originated, and he replied that he did not know, but thought it might have been through the ignition of a pan of fat Accused told him his furniture was insured for £150, but that ho did not know in what office, and that ho believed hi policy was burnt. Witness had seen the proof of loss, and was of the opinion that the furniture itemised in it would not go into the rooms of the house unless it were oiled up on the floors. To Mr. Martin: Witness examined the debris some two or' three hours after the outbreak of tho fire. Detective McMahon gave formal 'evince t.t° w a, ' rest of tho accused. His Worship committed the accused to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being al"„"d m £50 and m two sureties of £25 each '