Tuesday, sth September.

Otago Witness, Issue 1032, 9 September 1871, Page 11

Tuesday, sth September.

The first witness called was Lachman Hayman, who produced books to show the transactions which had taken place between Hayman and Co. , and Reichelt. J. M. Nicholson,

z>f the Government Survey Office, gave additional evidence concerning the premises of the accused, and the different approaches thereto. A. H. Jack, agent for the Victoria Insurance Company ; G. S. Brodrick, agent for the Liverpool, London, and Globe Insurance Company ; and G. W. Eliott, agent for the New Zealand Insurance Company, repeated the evidence given at the Police Court, as to the policies effected by the prisoner on his stock in their offices. On cross-examination, Mr Jack admitted that the insurance companies were contributing to the expenses of the prosecution ; at least they looked to their own interests throughout the trial. Mr Eliott, on cross-examination, said he could not say that if the accused were found " not guilty " that he should be prepared to pay him the insurance money. Before doing that he should require the accused to prove the value of his stock. He denied that the Company was endeavouring to evade pay« met by means of this trial. Rather than do that he would pay the money out of his own pocket. He would not take advantage of technicalities in the policy. No definite arrangement had been made between the Insurance Companies interested ; there was an understanding that they should act together, The Companies would pay the costs of counsel conducting the case. The information he derived as to the accused's stock in February last, was obtained from the accused himself ; witness did not examine the stock. William Noonan, who was in the employment of the accused before and at the time of the fire, repeated many of the statements which he made when the case was before the Magistrates. He admitted that when it was before the Coroner's Jury and the Mayor's Court, he stated "that stock was taken of the accused's property last Christmas. " He ought to have said that stock was taken the Christmas previous. Peter Allen, landlord of the City Buffet, also gave evidence, stating that the accused, Mr Howard, chemist, and himself, were joint owners of the hose referred to, and that it had been sometimes on the premises of one and sometimes on the premises of another. Robert Raymond, partner of Mr Howard, was the next witness called. He had noticed no perceptible difference in the accused's stock for a month previous to the fire. He had been on friendly terms with the accused. Witness slept on the premises which he occupied in Princes street on the night of the fire. Had those premises been destroyed, both he and Mrs Howard would have been ruined. He did not believe that the accused even contemplated injuring him. Mrs Howard made similar statements, adding that from the friendship which had existed between the accused ami her family, she would think it as likely that her partner, Mr Raymond, would attempt to burn down the premises as the accused. The accused knew the affairs of her family. He also knew that they Avere not secured. She did not believe that he even intended to injure them. The next witnesses called were Lydia Perkins, servani to Mrs Howard ; Leslie Charles, pianist at the City Buffet ; Mrs Wright, who slept at Miss Cane's Registry Office on the night of the fire ; and Miss Cane. The latter stated that the accused had been improving the premises which she occupied — he being her landlord — from April up to the time of the fire ; and it was agreed that she should pay him £2 per week rent for a certain period in consequence. She did not notice any difference in his stock prior to the fire. The accused once told her that he intended to use lucine lamps, because he could not dispose of them. The Court adjourned at about half-past five o'clock until ten a. m. next day.