A CHARGE OF ARSON.

Otago Witness, Issue 2199, 23 April 1896, Page 13

A CHARGE OF ARSON.

COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) 1" Clinton, April 17. Matthew Findlay Patterson was charged here to-day, before Messrs D. Wallace, J. Roy, and J. W. Thomson, J.P.s, with havinf , on or about 29th March, wilfully set fire to three stacks of vegetable produce, to wit, thre« stacks of oats, the property of James Nicol, of Wai v. era, value £100. Mr B. C. Haggitt appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr D. D. Macdonald for the accutoJ. Mr Hwggitt stated the particulars of the case, wlrich were much the Eame.as thoso already published. Ou Mr Macdonald's application all witnesses were ordered <°ut of court. James Nicol, f aimer, sworn, deposed : I am a farmer midway between Kaihiku and Waiwera on the railway line. On the night of the 29th March Ust I had three stacks of oats on my farm. Two of the stacks were about half a mile from the house about four yards apart, and the third abuut 300 yards away; oat stubble being between them. The stacks had been built from six to eight days. There was material for antther stack still on the ground. The crop was rip?, dry, and fit to lead in— good clean oaten sheaves. I last saw the stackß about 3 or 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon. I went to bed at about 9.30. Iftherehad been anjr fire at the stacks I would have noticed it, »B I was outride before retiring. The only noise I heard during that night was a noise like a trap passing. The stacks wera 17 or 18 chains from the railway line, so anyone wishing to fire the stacks would have a considerable distance to walk from the railway. I first knew of the stacks being on fire at 8 o'clock on the Monday moaning, when I was informed that they were burnt down. They were still burning, although. level with the ground. I can only account for them being burnt by incendiarism. I have known accused for 18 months off and on. He has worked for me. He stooked the crop that was burnt. IHe left me on March 7. He summon* d me for ! money which I had declined to pay. The case was heard at Balclutha, and I defended the action, with the r/sult that he lost the. case. I nev«r saw nor spoke to him since. The case was heard on March 11. I estimate my loss at about £100. There were 1600 or 1700 buahels. I had no insurance. Whilst accused was working with me we were the best of friends He talked to me about a case of firing. He caid if he lost his case with Cameron he would t-urn his house down over his head. Mr Macdonald contended that this evidence was not admissible. It was not. allowed in the Supreme t 'ourt. If accused had fired a stack in Canterbury fiva years ago, did it follow that he fired Nicol's? Mr Haggitt quoted authoritif s to show that the evidence should be accepted, and on the grounds of sound comrnoH sense, apart from law, surely it was necessary to prove the character of this man as regards fire raising. The Bench decided to accept the evidence, and that it be noted in the deposition that Mr Macdonald objected. Witness continued : I laughed at him at the time, and he told me that it wa6 easier to burn stacks than a house, I wished at the time that I had a witness, as I was afraid he might do something like that. He told me that he once burnt a fence because he did not get the contract. He told me he could burn Cameron s hut and be 200 or 300 miles away brfore the fire rame off. He said he would work up clay iuto balls like dough, make them hollow, put phosphorus and water inside, close them up and make slits, so that when the water dried off the flames could escape and burn whatever surrounded them. Edmund . Anscombe, sworn, said : I am a carpenter, living at Waiwera. I know Mr Nicol's farm. I passed there on the night of the 29th March, about 11 o'clock. I noticed a fire when I was passing. It was behind Mr Nicol's house. It was iti the neighbourhood of Mr Nicol's stacks. I did not know at the time the situation of the •ta< ks. I thought it a straw stack and did not take much notice of it, and rode on without giving any alarm. I only saw one fire. Walter Nicol, sworn, said : I am a farmer, living at Kaihiku. Jan.es Nicol in my son. I know the accused. He worked for me last February. He worked for me once before at shearing. I know a man named Donald Cameron. I know of accused having summoned Cameron for an alleged debt. [Objected to by Mr Macdonald.] I had a conversation with accused when the action was pending. He said if Cameron did not pay him he'd better mimd what he was doing, and look out for his hut. I said: "Surely you would not do anything to the old man's hut?" I think the words I used in reply were 1 " Surely you couldn't burn it, because it stands too high off the ground. It would require too much material; it would be seen." He replied : " Oh, I could burn it and be 100 miles away before it would catch." I asked kirn how he would do it, and he replied, " With phosphorus." He was starting to describe the way. he would proceed, but I stopped him. I knew my son's three stacks. I saw them the morning after the fire, about 8 o'clock. I did not go close up to the stacks. I built the stacks. The sheaves were in very good order— quito dry. I cannot in any way account for the fire, as there Vftß as CM near tha atacks fox two or tkraa days

?rior to the fire. It was a good threshing crop, conclude that they were set on fire. Detective O'Connorandl madeexperirnents vrithphosphorus. We took -two sheaves out of a stack belonging to me, and we took a piece of cotton rag and some water. We took a bit of phosphorus out of the bottle and wrapped it in a dry bit of rag and laid in the grass. In seven minutes after that it in ignited and blazed away. There was a little sun at the time. In the next experiment we took a stick cf phosphorus without any wrapping and placed it in a sheaf, and that ignited in three hours and ahalf and set fire to the sheaf. We then took another stick (these sticks were all experimented with within aquarter of an hour) and wrapped it in wet cloth and put it into a sheaf of oats. The result was that it ignited 14 hours and a-half after being in the sheaf. It would take about 20 mtuutea for a sheaf to burn. As the result of our experiments I found that phosphorus ignited sooner in the sun than in the shadeit all depended on the dampness of the cloth ia which it was wrapped. Donald Cameron, sworn, said : I am a retired fanner. I have known accused for eight or 10 years, during which time he has worked a little for m«. He sail he came from Ashburton. He used to talk to me about what he did in Canterbury. We were quite friendly then. He told me that he was ia the way of betting fire to the stacks of people when in Canterbury. He used to name the place', but, as I paid no attention to him, Ido not recollect any names. He stated that he ha<i done it out of revenge for something the poople ha.l done to him. He ussd to " prescriba" this pho -phorus and clay, and said he could be away ever so far before the fire broke out. He issued a summons against me some time in March. laidn't pay much attention to it. I did not owe him the amount he sued me for, but I paid it into court, because I thought it was no use appearing, as he wouldn't speak the truth. To Mr MacJonald : I have known accused eight or ten years. He told me about pho&phorus, but I never told him anything about phosphorus. I did not pay much attention to him, but allowed him to work on my property. I did not think he would set fire to my place. He sued me for stacking grain, of which he m.ver stacked a sheaf. He might have put a few in. He Bued xne, and I paid it rather than be bothered about it. , Mr Macdonald : Would you pay anyone £3 who sued you? Mr Haggitfc : Don't you tell him, or he'll cue you. Witness : I gave him a little work, aUhough he was a dangerous man. I didn't pay aoy attention to him. David Lindsay, sworn, said : I am a farm labourer in the employ of Mr Jeffries, Te Houka. Accused was working with Mr Jeffries at harvest time for a few days. He was talking to me about the case that was coming off against Mr Ntcol. Accused went to th* G'.utha about the case, and after he came back he told me he had lost it. He wasn't angry ; he wasn't plea cd. H« said he did not think that Mr Nicol aiid his brother had done right with him, and he thought he would summon them again. He thought that the Nicola had not told the truth. I remember an occasion when he was talking to me when throwing up the sheaves, but one cannot hear veiy well when one is ou the ground. I thought he said.ifc would serve Nicol rijiht if he was burnt out. Accused us dto talk about the un ons (the Sheaieis' Union) burning people out, and he said it was the correct thing to do. Mr Jeffries' son was with us ona day, but I do not know whether it was the day on which he was present that the conversation took place. Lindsay Hall Jeffries, sv/orn, said : lam a son of Mr Jeffries, of Te Houka. I know the accused. He worked for my father. He was working there when he bad a case at the Clutha. When he came b?ck from the Clutha I did not hear him say anything about it. I remember going out in the dray with Lindsay, the Saturday after the law case. Paterson was in the field. Lindsay was in the dray, and Paterson was passing the sheaves up to him. They were talking, but Ido not know what they said. I do not recollect hearing Nicol's name mentioned. He said to me : " Perhaps he " (I think it was Nicol he meant " wou't believe it, but he'll b lieve it when its too late, for I can burn him down and be in Duhedin when it is done." He also had a conversation with me on the Tuesday or Wednesday afturwardj. He said : " There were stacks burnt in Canterbury under the owners' eyes,' and they could not find out. Th'-re were' men working in the fields when the fires took place." I asked him how he could do ir, and he said two way 3. [Witness described the piocess by phosphorus alre.-dy indicated.] He said it usually went off at , midday when the sun was *t i<s hottest. He left about a week after this. Ho went to work for my brother, whose faim adjoins my fathei's. He left my brother's on a Saturday. I think he went to Bnlclutba. I think he was in a dray, and went in the direction of Balclutha. I heaTd cf the stacks being burnt on Monday. It was the Saturday prior to the fire that accused left my brother's. I v as 12 ypirs of »ge in September. George William Hutchins, sworn, said : I am a chemist and druggist, in business in Balclutha. I recogni«e the accuse i. He was in my chop about three weeks ago, on a Saturday, when he purchased Jib of phosphorus. He a^ked me if I had a lib or 21b tin. I replied that I had not, that it was in 101b tins. He said, "Let me see, there are four sti ks to the pound, arn't there?" I said, " No, there are eight sticks to the pound." He said, "I want four 'sticks." Ho said he wanted them for someone else. I gave him the phosphorus, and put it into a small ale bottle and gave it to him. I wrapped up the bottle in a piece of brown paper, and L thiuk there was a label attached to th« paper, it having been taken off some goods addressed to me. I told accused thut there were eight sticks to the pound, and he said four would do. It was between 4 and 5 when he was at my shop. Thomas Melrosu, sworn, said : lam a shepherd residing in Clinton. I do not know accused personally, but know him by sight. I saw him on the evening train from Balclutha to Clinton on the 28th March. I came from BaMutha to C iuton ; the train arrives at 9.15 p.m. Accused came on the same train as far as Kaihiku. We both travelled in a second-clais carriage. I think there was only a first and second-class carriage. Accused had a swag with him— a rolled white swag, He had beeii drinking. He got out at Kaihiku, taking M 3 swag with him. lam quite sure he did not come into the train, again, as after the train started I caw him standing on the platform. I spoke to him several times. We were not talking about anything particular. He had what I think was whisky with him in a bottle similar to one produced. Cross-examined : I will not swear how many carriages were on the train. I swear that he was walking along the platform in the same direction after the train moved on, and I watched him till out of sight. ■ I thought it was whisky, because he was drinking it. It was a flat-bottomed bottle, and something the shape of one produced. I am quite clear about that. There was a little more whisky in the bottle than there is now. He offered it to me, but I did not take it. Mr Macdonald : It showed your good sense. It's not much of a brand they have given. Mr Haggitt : He must have bought it wholesale at Balclutha. William Roger?, labourer, Te Houka, sworn, said : I generally live at Waiwera. I know the accused. I travelled with him on the night of March 28 in the train from Warepa to Kaihiku. I was in the sama carriage with him. I saw Meliosc in the same carriage. I asoke t« accused

I in the carriage. I remember him saying he would have the bett of Nicol. He told me he intended staying at Irving's, at Waiwera. He did not go so far as W«iwera: He got out at Kaihiku. I I noticed a bottle in his pocket ; he had two bottles with him— one in his pocket and another he showed me in which was whisky, tome of which he offered me. The bottle he showed me was like a lemonade bottle, similar to the one produced. .That is a sauce bottle ; it was similar to that. Cross-examined : Accused was talking to me in the train. lam sure he said he would have th« be3t of Nicol. He was a bit tipsy, and I think all the rest were seber. I saw a bottle sticking out of his pocket— it looked like a whisky bottle. There was only one* carriage on the train. I saw j him get out at Kaihiku with his swag. . ! To Mr Hpggitt : Accused and I have never quarrelled, and are on friendly terms. George Hastie, sworn, said : lam a police constable, stationed at Dunedin. In the and of March last I was stationed in Clinton. About 9.30 of the morning of March 29 the burning of the stacks was reported to me. I viiited the scene of the fire at 12 (noon), and found the stacks 6tillT)urning. Two stacks were in one paddock, distant apart Wt, and the third stack was distant about 300 yds 1 off. There was no trace of fire between the two stacks and the one in the other paddock. The fire in the one stack was entirely independent of the fire in the two in the other paddocks. On returning from the stacks I came by the railway line. There is a bridge over the line about a quarter of a'ruile on the Waiwera nide of Kaihiku. I saw whisky in a bottle (produced), and a label sticking on brown paper, and a broken bottle with a small patch of ashen beside it as if some paper had been burnt. There is a small creek close by this spot. Detective O'Connor and myself went to Mr Stewart's on the evening of Ist April and had a conversation with accused. Detective O'Connor told him that he had come to inquire into the burning of Mr Nicol's stacks, and that there was a certain amount of suspicion cast on him, and it was only right he should know who they were. Detective O'Connor then said : " Thia is Constable Hastie (pointing to me), and lam Chief Detective O'Connor " (referring to himself), Patterson said : " I know nothing at all about the burning of the stacks. I came here to Mr Stewart's close on 10 o'clock on Suuday morning. I c»me in the train on Saturday night from Balclutha to Clinton. I walked back from Clinton towards Waiwera along the railway, and slept in a hut about a mile and a-half from Clinton. I took a ticket from Balclutha to Warepa, and as there was no place to stop tbere I got a ticket from the guard from Warepa to Clinton." Accused denied getting out at Kaihiku except for a moment, when he got into^ the train again, getting into a first-class carriage and through into the one ho was in before, He denied having any whisky in the carriage. He said a boy got him 2s worth of whisky in a lemonade bottle at Balclutha, Imt he drank the whisky befoie he left Balclutha. He paid the bottle had a glass stopper in it. He said he did not know anyon* in the carriage with him. He'firit denied that he knew William Rodgers, but afterwards admitted that he did, but did not know whether he was in the carriage. In reply I to a question by the "detective he said he had no phosphorus with him. He also said that he nerer threatened to burn out Donald Cameron or ' James Nicol. When asked if /our witnesses swore that he got out at Kaihiku would he still say that he got out at Clinton, he said that if tKfty swore that they would be telling lies— that they had af ' set " | on him. < Maurice O'Connor, chief detective, stationed in Dunedin, corroborated the .previous witness's evidence so far as Constable Hastie's connection with the case was concerned. He then continued : On the following Sunday morning myself and Constable Pascoe arrested accused at Mr Stewart's, and I read a warrant charging him with this offence. He said : " Well, that will be a job for him to prove it if he thinks he can." The witness then described the exporiments he had made with the photphorus in company with Mr Walter Nicel. "This concluded the evidence for the prosecutiou. Mr Macdonald said he had very little time to say much, but he claimed that the case against his client must be dismissed. He quoted authorities to show that threats did not necessarily lead to action, and'he contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution proved nothing more than that the accused had a knowledge of phosphorus, and that he had made threats, which, authorities laid down, was an unlikely thing for a man to do who really contemplated any criminal attempt. He also quoted to show that where life and liberty were at stake the evidence adduced should be conclusive ere committal took place. The faot of his client having phosphorus was much made of, It was no uncommon thing for a man following his occupation to havo phosphorus in his possession. Much was made of the' man getting out at Kaihiku whilst saying he got out at Clinton ; but even admitting that this was a'fulsehood it did not necessarily follow that he set fire to the stacks. It was not incumbent oh counsel for accused to prove who «et fire to the stack. It was the duty of the police, and he claimed that they had failed to establish a case against accused, and he was entitled .to acquittal aa no jury would convict him. Mr Haggitt wished to reply, but the" Bench decided that it was unnecessary. The Bunch, after a short conference, decided that a, prima, facia case had been" made out, aud that it should go before the Supreme Couit. Bail was allowed in two sureties of £100 each.