THE OWHATA FIRES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14144, 20 August 1909, Page 6

THE OWHATA FIRES.

PRISONER'S DEFENCE.

VERDICT OF "NOT GUILTY."

The hearing of the charge of arson brought- against Wilson Stuart Adams, fruitgrower, of Greenhithe, and formerly a. night, watchman at Owhata, a timber settlement in the Kaitaia district, in connection with the burning of the schoolhouse and a second building at Owhata, was concluded before Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury at the Supreme Court yesterday. The Crown solicitor (Hon. J. A. Tole) prosecuted and Mr. J. R. Lundon defended. The witness Halliday (recalled) stated that he was an expert in the detection of footprints. The sketchings of the accused's feet were like those of the footprints discovered in the sand after the schoolhouse fires, while those of the native Taurere Tipene were quite different. Mr. Lundon, in opening the case for the defence, said he would endeavour to refute the inference that the accused had given no' alarm or rendered no assistance during the progress of any of- the fires. The jury were bound to give their verdict according to the sworn testimony, and counsel thought that even in this case appearances would be found to be deceptive. Accused stated in evidence that he wis a, married man with three children. He came to New Zealand from America six years ago. He had been charged with one previous offence, at Michigan, U.S.A. Before going to Owhata on February 12, 1908, he stayed with his relatives at Greenhithe for a few weeks. Working first as a millhand, accused was appointed to the position of night watchman for the Mitchelson Timber Company on April 11, and he continued as such until he received notice of his discharge on July 2. There was no truth in the suggestion that he desired the girl Edith Herbert to live with ! him other than as an assistant to his sister at their strawberry garden. He purchased clothing for her with this end in view. She was in need of this, because her father was out of work. He promised to treat her as his own child. The only occasion he had ever mentioned the subject of the fires to the girl was in her parents' house. She told him that she had had some schoolbooks burnt, and he sympathised with her. That was all he said. The girl's statements about his having told her of his intention of setting fire to the buildings were absolutely false. He had nothing whatever to do with the starting of the fires. He did not hear of the first unsuccessful attempt until the next morning. When he noticed the flames on the second occasion he ran to the manager's house and knocked loudly, but, as Mr. Hossock 1 was away, he received no reply. He then hurried to the boardinghouse, where the alarm was already being given. The schoolmaster (Mr. Rouse) told accused early on the morning after the second fire that he could not get out of his head the thought that the fire was a direct outcome of a personal grudge against him. Mr. Rouse and accused discussed the possibility of the fire having resulted from a prejudice against the school itself, a grudge against the schoolmaster, or jealousy on account of something which might have occurred in connection with dances which were held in the school, and of which Mr. Rouse was secretary. After the first attempt, accused advanced the theory that a boy who was not fond of attending school might have done it. The schoolmaster stated that he had been a frequent visitor at the house of Taurere, whose., wife attended the dances. Taurere, on a subsequent occasion, told accused he, too, thought the fire was the result of jealousy towards Mr. Rouse. On the occasion of the fire which destroyed the cottage that was to serve as a temporary school, accused noticed the fire while on duty, and loused, several men who were sleeping in the vicinity. Accused left Owhata about a week after the cottage fire. Cross-ex-amined : The only offence he was ever charged with having committed was kicking at a dog in an American city some 14 years ago. With regard to the footprints which were found on the beach 6ft apart, accused said it was a physical impossibility for them to have been caused by him, as ho suffered from a rupture, and could not stride 6ft.

Mr. Tole : Do you still suspect Taurere of having caused the fires?

Accused : I cannot honestly say that I do.

Dr. Hope, of Kaitaia, stated that what he discovered on examining the girl Edith Herbert was consistent with the latter's statement with regard to the accused. Witness would take the girl to be less than 13 years of age.

The gaol surgeon at Auckland considered that accused was capable of running and producing the footprints referred to, although witness would not advise a man in his condition to do so, owing to a slight rupture.

Mr. Lundon addressed the jury at considerable length,, and claimed that, in view of the conflicting nature of the evidence, the prisoner should be given the benefit of tho doubt which might justly be supposed to exist in tho minds of jurors.

His Honor, in directing the jury, remarked that the case was a very serious one. The only direct evidence was that of the girl Edith Herbert, and the value of her testimony was somewhat affected by the variation in the girl's present statement as compared with her evidence in the lower Court. But, curiously enough, this evidence was corroborated by the accused, who advocated that, as a " business proposition," he made an effort to enlist the girl's services, so as to secure cheap labour on his family's strawberry farm. According to his own statement, he spent £3 or £4 upon her during the last six weeks of bis residence at 0 what a, and why, it might be asked, had his attention been centred on this particular girl? The object of accused in advancing various theories of the probable culprit was certainly not the detection of crime, because no sane man would have gone about it as he had done. There was a mass of other evidence, quite immaterial to tho issue, with the exception that it contested the veracity of the prisoner's evidence. If there was any doubt in the minds of the jury they were entitled to acquit accused, but it must be a reasonable doubt. After a very brief retirement, the jury returned at 7.15 p.m. with a verdict of "Not guilty." Adams will be further charged this morning with carnally knowing a girl under the age of 16 years.