Saturday, 9th September.

Otago Witness, Issue 1033, 16 September 1871, Page 10

Saturday, 9th September.

Additional evidence was called for the defence. Oscar Louis, a storekeeper at Palmerston, deposed that he went to the accused's shop on the Thursday prior to the tire to buy some fancy goods. "When he walked round the shop to see if there was anything that would suit him, it appeared to be well stocked. Clias. F. Statham gave evidence regarding the purchases made from Butterworth Bros, by the accused since May ISG9, amounting to £400 ; also purchases which had been made since June IS7O, amounting to £33 odd. Charles Goldaininer, cabinetmaker, repeated the evidence which he gave at the Police Court respecting his visit to Rechelfs shop on the day before the fire ; his measuring the work which Ueiclielt had said he wanted him to do, and respecting his having seen Reich elt pouring oil into lamps from a billy whilst in the office. He went to Reichelt's shop about the end of April. He had been doing nothing for some time previously. He then told Reichelt that as soon as he passed through the Insolvent Court he intended to go up the country. He believed he said he intended to go to Oainaru. He wrote to his brother on the subject. The letter produced he received from his brother a day or two before Detective Farrell seized the goods which he bought from Reichelt, .Farrell took the letter out of his coat pocket.' Witness had as>ku<l Reiehelt if he would give him a, start in business with some of his goods. Rciehelt replied that he would do so, and asked to what extent he required to beasaistel. Witness replied that £100 or £130 would enable him to commence business. Reichclt said he would give him a start, as he had goods in his shop nearly sufficient to fill another shop the same size as his own. Witness told Reiehelt that he had no money, but that he would pay him by bills. Reichelt agreed to this. AYitness asked him to give him as much time as he could. Witness was at this time in the Bankruptcy Court. His creditors were not opposing him. Eeichelt stated, that ho would give him as much time as he could. Witness agreed to leave the selection of the goods to Rejchelt, but it was also understood that the goods selected should be saleable articles, and such as it was considered he could sell best in an upcountry township. Reichelt also told him that he had had a lot of picture frames in stock for a long time, which he called dead stock. He asked witness if he would buy them. Witness replied that if he found he could make use of them, and that they were cheap, he would do so! After witnchb had looked at the frames, Reichelt told him that if he would take the lot he should have them at Is each. There was no agreement made as to the price of any other articles except the picture frames. Ho told Reichelt to make out the bills as' soon as he had passed through the Bankruptcy Court, ami that he would then, sign them. Mr Barton : You did. not mean to say that

you would sign bills for twenty thousand pounds ?

Witness : !No. He (witness) told Reichelt to scud tho goodo to his (witness's) place, when he had time to do so ; he told him to bend them between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day, otherwise he might not be at home, and that he would like to be at home to receive the goods. Witness did receive the goods on different days ; they were brought by different expressmen. The picture frames he kept in his workshop. They were not concealed in any way ; some of them were in a box, but most of them were left exposed on the flour. Witness had another house which he rented from a person named Winchester, in Leith street, where he stored the other goods. He had previously told Winchester that he wanted to store^goods in that house. He had stated all this in another Court ; the prosecution could have called Winchester if they had wished to do so. He was in town. Detective Farrell came to witness's place on the 22nd June, at about half-past 1 o'clock. He asked him if an expressman had brought three cases of goods from Ilcicholt's. Wifcnoss replied that more than three cases of goods had been brought to ' his place from Reichelt's shop, and which he (witness) had bought. Farrell asked him where -the goods where, and witness took him to the place where they were stored. Farrell engaged an express, went back to witness's house, and took the picture frames. On reaching the Police Station, Farrell gave witness into custody. He took him into the room, and required him to make a statement. He could not say if the police usually 'did that. Mr Barton : Where is the statement ? Mr Smith : I have asked for it. Mr Thompson tells me that it has not been' seen since it was produced at the Mayor's Court. Witness : I made a statement substantially the same as 'I am making now. I do not remember that statement being produced in Court. Examination continued : After I had made that statement, Farrell took me into another room and made a charge 1 against me. I said he had no right to do so, because I was innocent. I was put in a cell, brought before the Mayor, and discharged. ' I was under arrest four days. Mr Barton asked a, question regarding the statement referred to. Mr Smith : It was riot used in Court: t ' His Honour asked who took the statement down. Witness : Sub-Inspector Thompson. Mr Smith : It was a similar statement to what the witness has made here to-day. ' i Mr Barton : Then- you don't 1 produce it. Mr Smith : I have not got it. ' [The statement was afterwards produced by Sub-Inspector Thompson.] The witness was then cross-examined by Mr Smith. He said : I have no knowledge of the fancy goods trade. I was at Reichelt's shop on the day prior to" the fire. I was sent for, I think, ou-the day previous. I was required to lay a floor down. , When Beissel left, Reichelt and I were left alone in his office. There was a billy on the table ; and there might also have , been six lamps like that produced. Heiclielt i might have poured oil into three of them during • the time I was there. ' The small, vessel which contained the wick and oil was similar to that 2>roduced. • Reichelt , was pouring the oil into those vessels out of a billy. I did not observe him spill i any. Reiehelt said it wag only necessary to wet the sponge, and that that was the reason he poured the oil back into the'billy. I, did ask Reichelt if he ■would give me a start in business by letting me have some of lv's goods. He replied that he would do. so. I was to pay for these goods by bills. I don't i know whether I considered the goods my property from the time they arrived at my house. I went to Eeichelt's premises io buy' goods. • • — ..-.-- His Honour pointed 4 out • that two other persons besides the witness claimed the goods, and that therefore he might entertain some doubt as to whether they were his property. , , ; Mr Smith : I am not asking the witness for a legal opinion, your Honour. My question is put simply to ascertain what was his belief at the time. ' " ' His Honour : That you are .entitled to shew. On being further cross-examined, witness said he considered that the goods would be his when he hail signed the bills, and not until then. He could not say what his impression was at the time he got the goods. When he had bought the goqds it must have been his impression that lie was the lawful owner of them. The goods were sent to his premises by Reichelt before he was clear of the Bankruptcy Court because lie (witness) did not want there to be any delay. 'He wished to get the goods sent down to his place so that theie might be no delay in 'his starting for Oamaru when he had 'passed through the Bankruptcy Court. Reichelt alao told witness that when lie had packed this goods he would not keep them on his premises. He also stated that he had only small boxes i» which he could pack them. Witness replied that it did not matter, because he intended to pack them afterwards in large cedar cases. Nothing had been said as to (lie ilntijror of <l|<» jriKiilrt lir'illK H«'iz<'(l bc'fni'O ho (wilitcM.-O \\ ti.-« rlojir of llio llunkniptey i'ouit. WiiWM> WAllti'd IttMi'ht'U. U\ HtMld the goods down to hia honac because lib did not wish there to be any delay in getting them packed, and Reichelt would not keep bix or eight cases in his shop. When he had one or two cases ready he Bent them downDelay would have been caused in unpacking «id packing the goods. 1 Hi might tw hjrc

a week to pack tho goods. He was certain that it would take him more than a day to pack: the six cases'. ,He could not state how much longer it would take him. ■ It might ; bake him throe days or more. He had no distinct belief as to how long it would take him. \ He recollected Reichelt arriving here fromiJßerlin. He brought goods with him, with . which he commenced business. . lleichelt 1 hail been here before, and was occupied as a travelling hawker. He also had a shop, somewhere in George street. He lodged at witness's house before he went to G ermany. On; being re-examined by Mr Barton, the witness stated that before he received the goods he did not , know of what bulk they would be. He did not exactly know 'what goods he was to get. He left the selection of them to Reichelt. He did not know what would be the exact value of the goods. He expected they would be ,w,orth about £150, He certainly had no intention of defrauding his creditors in what he did in connection with these goods. , i G. K. Turtori, solicitor, produced the title deeds of Rcicholt's premises — ihc premises that were burned. J,t was complete. Iteichelt paid £550 for the goodwill of the property ; £100 cash, , and the balance by acceptances, all of which had been paid. T,hero was also a covenant that in case the premises were destroyed , by fire, Reichelt should rebuild suitable business premises, at a cost of not less than £000, or forfeit his lease. Harris Friedlich, storekeeper and hotelkeeper, stated, in addition to. the evidence ■which he gave at the Mayor's Court, that recently he had not regularly attended, [sales, but he knew that Reichelt bought the principal part of Beveridge's stock, and that he bought goods on , other persons' premises, he mentioned amongst them Messrs Moses and De Carle. After witness had been examined and cross-exainined, as to the value of i Eeichelt's stock, he stated that when Eeichelt was selling goods to him shortly before the, fire, he appeared to bo more like a man who did not qare about selling, rather than a man who wanted to sell, at any , price.

Alfred Woods, who had not previously given evidence,' said : T live about twenty yards from the Bell Tower in a direct line. On the night of the fire I heard a cry of Fire. In about a minute' afterwards I heard the fire bell commence to ring. A man could not get over the hill round to Rattray street in the interval which elapsed from the cry of fire.' The cry seemed to oome from between the' Dowling street steps and the Bell Tower.

By Mr Smith : • I happened to speak about this affair after tho hre, and after the cn j quiry had taken place at the Mayor's Court. I was laughing at Hanigan about the mariner in which he had to leave the Court, and the curious story he told. I laughed at his being sent out of Court. I was afterwards subpoenaed.' I did not speak to anybody else about the 1 matter until after I got the subpoena. I was in bed when I heard the cry of Fire. I had been awake for about half an hour previously. I only- heard one cry of Fire. lam almost sure it was a man's voice. If, a nian -had put ■ his head out 1 of" Miller's attic window in Moray Place; ' and called Firej I don't think 1 should 'have heard him. After the witness had been further cross-examined on this point, he said : I did riot get out of bed when I heard the cry of Five! I did not get up until the next morning. I had to go 1 away early. I had not even the curiosity! to look where- the fire was. I heard somebody in the street say that it was near the' City Buffet. lam almost sure that the cry which. I- heard was the cry that the bellman heard. ■ By Mr Barton : Hanigan is an Irishman, and sometimes says in a curious way what he, has got to say. Francis Hanigan, tailor, Princes street, stated that his place of business and dwelling house were opposite Reichelt's. On the night of the fire, lie 'saw a man, who cried Fire, go up the Dowling street steps. He lost the voice at the 1 top of the steps.' On being cross-examined, the witness said that from where he dtood on the night of the fire he could not see the foot of the Dowling street steps. He did not think he could do so at any time. When he said the man who cried Fire ran up the Dowling street steps he merely judged by the sound of his voice. " Lydia Perkins, recalled, recognized a piece of cloth, which had been found at the fire, as being similar to the cloth of a coat which Reichelt had worn at Mrs Howard's house. She saw the coat in Reichelt'a possession two or three days before the fire. William Stevenson, a miner, gave evidence as to the collection of fire damp in mines in some places, although at the same time' other parts of the mine would be comparatively free from it. He also deposed that lie found the piece of cloth respecting which the last witness had given evidence in the office of lleichelt's shop after 1 the tire. Thomas Beveridge, tailor, Princes street, Margaret Jackson, charwoman, and Samuel Dugman, were also examined. The latter said that Iteichelt had assisted him in his business by giving him credit. Witness 'also kneAV another man whom Reichelt had assisted. William Bugler, Robert Carr, and Hermann During 1 , were also examined.

C. I). Irvine, (J.E., gave similar evidence to that already published, regarding experiments made by him to test the explosive jiru|>ei'ti<vi «f ilxt v/ijmiir rvnlvorl by Iticiiio, itu milniMinnbility and volatility. Mr Miuion ; lfj on Uki <tvoninf{eif f.hti mVlit, of thoh're, this lnlly (produced) Intel boon loft open in the office — if a Newcastle coal lire had burnt all day, from 11 o'clock a.m. down to 7 minutes to 7 o'clock p.m. — if in that little office, .which was crowded up .with goodB, ! some experiments with lucine lamps were ' carried on during the d»y— the plaes

shut'up at 7 o'clock, the outer shop locked, the (window closed— under all these conditions, if a person went into that room with a lighted lamp, what do you anticipate would take place ? Witness : I would say there would be a possibility of explosion, but not much probability, upon those conditions. Mr Barton : Supposing the same conditions with this one added — the open tin of lucine placed under a small table standing against the wall— and with one end or both closed up so that it becomes to a certain extent ,a partially closed place, would the vapour from .this open vessel be likely to collect there or spread about ? Witness : The vapour from the lucine would have a tendency to rise up or collect towards the roof, , and thus gradually mix with i the air if the proportions were favourable. .

Mr Barton: If the tin of lucine had been accidentally thrown over— if papers and other things had been thus saturated with the oil — would that increase the possibility of explosive gas being in the room ? Witness : ]t would increase the probability very much, and render it extremely .dangerous to go into the room under .such '.conditions.

Mr Barton : Supposing the conditions already given, and that a man had a match, ji candle, or open lamp in his hand, and passed close to the top of the billy, do you think it probable or possible that the material in the billy might take tire and flare up in his face ?, i Witness : I did not try such an experiment, and Consequently do not know. : Mr Barton then asked the witness whether, supposing all the conditions before named to be proved, there was anything improbable in the statements made by Reichelt to the police as to the origin of the fire ? Witness : Supposing that statement to be exactly true, and that the circumstances occurred to me instead of to him, I would sayl went into the room and struck a light, that an explosion took place which set the lucine J all in a blaze. The explosive cloud 'might be at the roof, and the opening of the door might bring the vapour downwards upon the lamp, and cause an explosion.

Oh Monday, counsel for the defence and prosecution addressed the jury at great length, and His Honour, at the request of the Foreman of the .Jury, postponed his summing up until next morning. ( hi Tuesday morning, accordingly, His Honour summed up 'in a speech of over two hours' duration. At 25 minutes to 1 a.m. on Wednesday, His Honour called the jury into Court, and on being informed by the Foreman that there was no probability of their agreeing, he discharged them. At the regular sitting of the Court the same day it was arranged that the cass should be tried over again before a special jury, as before, commencing on Mon1 day week, the 25th inst.

. Before the ordinary business of the Supreme Court was proceeded with on "Wednesday, Mr Barton applied that F. W. lleichelt, who, was recently tried for arson, should be discharged. The application was refused by His Honour, and Mr Barton then asked that the charge against Reichelt should be proceeded with. It was ultimately decided that Heichelt should be again tried by a special jury, on Monday, the 25th inst. Mr Barton urged that Reichelt, being a foreigner, would beenfcitled to claim that of twelve jurymen, six should be foreigners, whereupon Mr Haggitt pointed out that the accused was a naturalised British subject. In roply to Mr Barton', His Honour stated that the same bail as had, been fixed by the Magistrates would be accepted, and that the Registrar would ascertain whether the bondsmen were proper persons. At a later period of the day Reichelt was released upon hail. Alexander :F. M'Kenzie was indicted for having, at Tapanui, on the 28th July last, stolen a steer, the property of Mr William Mayhew. Mr Bar ton defended the accused. On the day above mentioned the accused, accompanied by a man named Stewart, went to the station of Mr W. H. S. Roberts, and asked permission to take away from the run on which it had been 'running a cow which had lately calved, and which belonged to a man named Taylor. As the cow, if it had not been taken away for the purpose of milking, would have deteriorated in value, permission was given. Stewart al3O stated that he wished to take a beast belonging to another person to kill, and Roberts said lie woidd be going to Tapanui .shortly afterwards, and that when he met them there they might tell him what beast they had taken. The accused, some of whose cattle had been running on the same run, sold a beast .to Stewart, and told Roberts what beasts he had taken. Ultimately, a steer belonging to Mayhew, and which had also been running on Robcrts's run was missed. Constable L'urdie visited Stewart's premises, and saw the skin of a be;ist which was said to have belonged to the prosecutor. Mr Mayhew, jim., stated that he saw the accused drive several beasts past his father's house, ! but he could not say whether the missing steer was amongst them. A witness was also called who supported the accused in saying that he had a beast similar to that which ho was charged with having dlolou.i Tho jury, uffcor di'libni'iitin^ for || V « niimiltiM, returned a verdict of "Not Uuilly,"

It is notified in the Canterbury Provincial Government Gazette that the* proclamation declaring the province of Otago to be an infected 'district under the .provisions of the Piseaped, Cattle Act, has been rescinded,,