CHARGE OF ARSON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12268, 12 May 1903, Page 3

CHARGE OF ARSON.

THE NEWMARKET CANS.

TRIAL AT THE SUPREME COURT

The trial of John Hamilton on (ho charge of arson, laid against him in connection with the fire which occurred at Newmarket on March 17 last, was commenced at the Supreme Court yesterday morning before Mr. Justice Conolly and a jury o[ 12. The accused, who pleaded "Not guilty," was charged with wilfully setting fire to a dwellinghouse, the property of James Cannon, at Newmarket, on the date mentioned. The Hon. J. A. Tole, Crown Prosec utor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for the accused.

Evidence similar to that given at; the hearing in the lower-Court was given by James Gannon, the owner of the house (who had made an unsuccessful attempt to | ft accused out of his house), and by John M Coll, i»ubagent for the Commercial Union Assurance r Company, and Robert Holmes, sub-agent for the Standard Insurance Company, both of whom had been applied to by accused to take a risk on his furniture, 1 nt had refused.

James Cahill, sub agent at Newmarket for the Guardian Insurance Company, said that at accused's request a policy foi £150 was issued on the furniture. Accused took 'witness into the house one night before he took the risk.

By Mr. Martin: "Witness did iot make a minute examination of the contents of the building. He did not fix any vilue of the contents, but when he was asl ed at the office whether the furniture was .vorth £200 he said: "I presume it would be or he would not have taken a £150 risk upon it." The particulars were filled in by the office from witness' answers to questions. Re-examined: Witness obtained his; information from accused. The estimated value was arrived at from the basis of the amount of risk asked for by accused. His Honor said this seemed a peculiar method of doing business. The better way would be surely to ascertain the value in the first place, and then deduct a proportion to fix the amount, of the risk.

David Bruce Gilfillan, clerk in the office of the Guardian Insurance Company, said accused called at the office on March 23 and reported the fire. He said he was baking or frying some meat in a pan, and finding that he had no salt he went to a neighbour's to get some salt. Ho said that when ho returned he found the house in flames. Accused said his policy had been destroyed in the fire, and that he had also lost some £20 in. cash. Witness gave him a proof of loss form and explained how it should be fillet! up. Three days later accused brought in the filled-in form. Margaret Estall, accused's next-door neighbour, said that when the fire wan discevered she informed accused, who was some distance away, of the fact. She ran after him as he went towards the fire.

Mr. Tole: Was accused running? Witness: Oh, no ! he was not running ! (Laughter). Continuing, witness said that when accused opened the door thero was no sign of fire except in the ceiling some distance from the fireplace, and on one of the walls. There was no fire in the fireplace, and witness saw no sign of a frying-pan or cooking operations. By Mr. Martin: Witness did not notice any ashes in the fireplace. All that she saw in the kitchen was a table and a chair.. Mrs. Keenan, whose house was also destroyed by the fire, said that when she saw accused going towards the fire she said to him: "You have done it, boss, and you have done it well." A few days beforo the fire accused said, in referring to a man named Mundy, who was supposed to be waiting 1 for tho house, that when lie had finished with the house Mundv would not, set foot on a board of it. When accused went into the house over two years ago the furniture, which was obtained from a secondhand shop, was stated by accused's housekeeper to have cost £8 4s. A few days after the furniture arrived witness heard accused say to his housekeeper: "Now you have them; if you are cute (or cunning) enough you can make £80 out of them. Witness did not hear what these words referred to, but accused's housekeeper told her afterwards that they referred to the furniture. By Mr. Martin: Witness had no ill-feeling against accused. She had been dragged into court as a witness. John Keenan, husband of tho last witness, gave similar evidence to that given by him in the lower Court. , , Annie Howell, who lived in Morrow-street at the time of the fire, said that when accused was told that his house was on lire be did not hurry at all. , Mary Miller said' sho visited the accused s house in December last. The house, so far a.s she saw, was very poorly furnished. When she heard that accused had £150 on his furniture she remarked that she would not give . more than £3 for all that she saw. She was not in all the rooms. , William Field said that when he examined the ruins of the fire on behalf of the insurance company he discovered the remains of three iron bedstead's, a sewing machine, some milk dishes, a perambulator, etc. When ho questioned accused as to the cause of the fire the latter replied in the first instance that he did not know, but ho suggested that it may have been due to the ignition of a pan. of fat. He said he had been to a neighbour's, to borrow some salt, and that when he returned 1 the house was in flames. He had seen the proof of loss, and he was of opinion that the furniture mentioned therein could not have been placed on the floor of a house of the size so as to be used for domestic purposes. Had it been in the l house it must have been piled up. Detective McMahon also gave evidence. This closed the evidence for the Crown. Mr. Martin called the following witnesses for the defence: — Mary Ann Taylor, residing at Mr. Patterson's, in Morrow-street, Newmarket, said she saw accused on the day of the fire in Patterson's house. He came in for some salt and witness gave him some. By Mr. Tole: Witness was not interested in the accused more than in any other person. Mr. Tole: You brought up his lunch today, did you not? Witness: Yes; I was asked to do so. Charlotte Stewart, housekeeper to the accused, said that on the day of the fire accused drove her and her children to town. Accused, went home by himself, witness and the children spending the afternoon'in the Domain, where St. Patrick's sports were being held. After the fire witness made out the proof of loss. The list correctly set forth the goods that were in the house. She and accused reckoned up the values together. When she first went to the house she did not get in a load of second-hand furniture with a bill for £8 Is. Accused had never made a remark to her about making £80 out of the furniture.

By Mr. Tole: The last furniture put in the house was put there about four months before last Christmas. This consisted 1 of two small dressing-tables and three chairs. The value of these would be under £3.

This concluded the evidence, and the Court then adjourned until ten a.m. to-day.