SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3205, 18 August 1915, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, August 11. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) THREAT TO BEEN AN HOTEL. . about J >'y “■ ,“ G " with intent to copied by Matthew Fdzpa u • Mr Hay defended accused, who pKaueci hot guilty. ~r w c, MacTho Crown Prosecutor (Mi W«?• Gregor) said that the Victoria Budge Hotel might happen to be tneie. , , nc j ing which might easily bo ana which it would be impossible to sat. e it u oaimbt fire. On the evening ot July Ea another- building in the neighbourhooda small cottage in which accused lu « , » > the oronerty of an old man named pteien son—was burned down mysterious y, - tween half-past 5 and 6 o clock Just be fore the reflection of that hi r , from the hotel accused turned up at the hotel in a very excited state. n ® J“ his hands a bottle, which was afterwards proved to contain kerosene, and he was very angry with Stevenson, whom he professed to be anxious to got back to the hut, and he was very angry with the licensee (Fitzpatrick) for keeping Steven son at his hotel that night. Accused and •Stevenson had been living at a hut u longing to Stevenson for some time, and accused had apparently been loahng on Stevenson. When accused came to the hotel he was seen with a bottle m his hands making a rush at Stevenson and the licensee threw his arms around him and stopped him, while another man named Courtenay took the bottle from him and threw it into a fence. Then accused had an altercation with Stevenson, and /attempted to drag him away from the hotel. He asked the licensee if Simon Stevenson was going to stay at the hotel that nigh and on the licensee saying that he would if he wished to. he replied that if Stevenson slept there that night his (i itzpatnck s) house would bo in flames. the xeflection of the lire over the hill was seen Fortunately accused was arrested that night so that he did not get a chance to put his threat into execution. When accused was charged with the offence he said: “I don’t remember threatening him. Drink is the cause of the whole lot. He escaped from the look-up at Arrowtown, and was found wending h:s way back towards the hotel. He (the Grown Prosecutor) put it that this man was a danger to the community, and that if he had not been put out of the way that night there might have been arson, and probably still more serious crime done. _ Evidence having been given, Mr Hay addressed the jury. He said that the charge was a fairly serious one, and involved a term of imprisonment of two years The onus of proof - lay upon _ the Crown that this man made a serious throat which came within the code. With reference to the case heard the previous clay, counsel pointed out that that case was finished with and that the jury was not to be regarded as a court of appeal. Ihe Crown had not dealt with the present case fairly. Why had Stevenson not been called? Simply because he did not corroborate the evidence of the witnesses called. The reason he had not been called was that he would not say anything about the threat at all. It looked as if the Crown was trying to snatch a verdict. His Honor pointed out that the names of the witnesses the Crown had proposed _ to call appeared on the back of the indictment, and that had Mr Hay desired the Crown to call Stevenson ho only had to intimate the fact to tno Grown. Mr Hav continuing, said that there had been a drunken brawl between accused and Stevenson, and what accused had possibly meant when ho had said what he did to" Fitzpatrick was that Stevenson was in no condition to stay in the hotel that night, as he might bo a source of danger to the house. His Honor then summed up, and the jury, after a retirement of nearly two hours, returned a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to leniency on account of accused’s excited state of mind. Sentence was suspended. Tuesday, August 10. MISCHIEF. The criminal sittings wore resumed at 10.30 a.m., the case against John Eiely, who was charged with mischief, being proceeded with. Further evidence was given, in the course of which it was stated that accused had said to the police that ho did not recollect being at MTntosh’s cottage, and that if he had been there he must have been very drunk. Mr Hanlon, who appeared for accused, addressed the jury. His Honor having summed up, the jury retired, and returned two hours and a-nalf later with a verdict of not guilty. Accused was consequently liberated. James Kirkman, alias James Turner, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, about July 29, at Waitiri, committed mischief by wilfully destroying the dwellinghouse and furniture of Simon Stevenson, valued at £5 or upwards, and was defended by Mr Hay. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the class of mischief in this case was the burning down of a small cottage in which an old man named Stevenson and accused had been living for some time. Fortunately for accused the cottage had boon placed on a sledge, and was not therefore a fixture, and he could not he charged with arson. The dwelling-house cost about £lO, and the contents were said to be worth about £47. Evidence was then taken at considerable length. Mr liny, addressing the jury, said that there wore two elements in the case; the first that accused caused the fire, and the second that lie wilfully caused it, well knowing what he was doing. If the jury scrutinised the evidence it would come to the conclusion that it. was by no means clear that accused sot fire to the hut, and that it was far from clear that it was wilfully set on fire. , . His Honor said that, if the jury thought that the fire might have been accidental, acciwed /should bo acquitted. The Foreran* Well, wo are not satisfied. Wo tKitJ; fd may davc been an accident. Wa are satisfied ih..; accused was responsible

for the fire, but not satisfied that it was not accidental. His Honor r That is equivalent to a verdict of not guilty. A verdict of not guilty was therefore recorded, and accused was discharged on that charge; but there remains another one against him —threatening to sot fire to the hotel. Prisoners for Sentence. MISCHIEF. Alfred James M'Coli was brought up for sentence on a charge of mischief committed at Brighton. Mr Sourr, who appeared for prisoner, said M'Coli was 29 years of ago. He had never been in trouble of any description before, and since this occurrence he had given every assistance to the police in order to have the matter brought to a proper conclusion. He had assisted in that direction by pleading guilty in the lower court, and ho had made complete restitution to Mr MTntosh. He seemed to have committed the crime purely owing to being very drunk. Counsel asked his Honor to extend the benefits of the Probation Act to prisoner. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the police report was quite favourable to M'Coli, and that Mr Scurr had satisfied him (Mr Macgregor) that prisoner had made restitution. His Honor said ho thought the case was one in which, looking at the circumstances, he would bo justified in extending the benefits of the First Offenders Probation Act. It appeared that prisoner had always borne a good character previously, and it appeared from the evidence that the lapse was duo to his indulging too freely in alcohol. It had been stated on his behalf that he had made complete restitution for the damage done, and that ho had done his best to assist the police in clearing up the matter. He (his Honor) had no doubt whatever that the evidence given by prisoner in proof of Rioly taking part in the affair was perfectly true, and that Rioly did t/akc part in the damage done to MTntosh’s property. Prisoner would be released on probation for a term of two years. Ho had better, in his own interests, take out a prohibition order against himself, and, also, as a condition of probation, he would have to pay the expenses incurred by the Crown, amounting to £2 10s. These would have to be paid within a week. WATERMAN’S CASE. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Wm. C. Macgrogor), referring to the charge against George Waterman, hoard the previous day, stated that the military authorities had boon communicated with, and they did not desire to accept the services of accused. Later in the day his Honor said it appeared that prisoner was not a first offender within the meaning of the Act, and he could not be dealt with under the Probation Act. But, looking at the circumstance®, it was a case where it was desirable to avoid sending the young man to gaol, and, seeing that he had been in custody for six weeks, ho (his Honor) thought ho would bo justified in dealing with the case by calling upon prisoner to come up for sentence wnen called on. Ho, however, wished prisoner to understand that this would bo his last chance. The prisoner would have to refund the Crown expenses of the case, which amounted to £2 16®, within a month. His Honor, at the invitation of the Crown Prosecutor, fixed the period within which prisoner might bo called on for sentence to three years.