Alleged arson.

Southland Times, Issue 19116, 5 August 1903, Page 2

Alleged arson.

The hearing of th* information, ngaiost uuiseppi \»it>, caara^u wiUi vuuuiiy _ setting fire u> '«_*__, -'_tiea was at Unio. w as continued - yest-niay, ueiore Mr ■>. _j Mc.artuy, »._.. i nice witnesses were called lor the prosecution, their eviuence being corrouorativc oi tnat pre-- . v For'^iie'-eience Mr Macalister culled ,;. --, William Reid, Nigntvui^s, _uaie ci. ValU Bros, tii a tnres'mug null, wno ueposed that he c saw OUowu on tne .Monday week before the ore about doing . his tnnshing. Michael aittf John O Dowd , were present at the time. Spooking; abqut t be- crop O'Dowd said 1 :t hat he , reckoned oti Close ohV4JOOO sac His of oats; - and": tnat he ha<t.; ; flb .one, to thi esn . ior him. y -Witness' nsK?d-;--ior his ..draining __-. work, and triiovvdirave it to him and the' threshing was also arranged. O DO«a - asked 'when the mill would be round, and witness said in eight or ten duy-V Nothing was said, about the pnee .ior the tnreshing, as O'Dowd kievv the terms made with the Opio laimcrs Union. O'Dowd said that ne did know about threshing the bottom- place as it was very wet. He' did not think witness wolild get about with the'traction engine, but he supposed ValU would be able to: come iii -with the portable. On Thursday night witness pulled into. Mrs Spillane's. about three-quarters of o. mile from O'Dowd's. Nest morning the boy O'Dowd handed him a letter. Kept the letter "till dinner time, and burned it in the firebox of the engine in tho presence of "Fat Crow, who saw it. 'J he letter stated: "1 will not give jOu my < threshing, as I have heard arom a nian you thresh for that you cannot do 30 bags an hour and do it well ; and for jthe quantity of stuff I have it would not pay me to' work with you." William Newton also saw the Irtter. Witness : knew Mick Flynn and John Kc-Hy:.had-never shown them the letter or i«ad it in their presence. Had never givciv-it to or shown it to Valli. To Inspector Mitchell : Had been partner 'with ValU Bros in the threshing mill lor the past two years. They had two plants out : witness was running one und ihe Vailifi the other. Witness kept his own books, and _ the Vallis kept theirs/ showing the number of bags threshed. It was not customary to receive orders in writing, and - witness took no note of ,7 hem. Knew by Valli's book what orders they had received. Considered the note be had received from O'Dowd affected the Vallis and himself equally. Did not s.how the Vallis tho letter because he did not think it worth whil e . Thought it would do "to tj.ll them fry u-ord of n»outb. Was _t Valli's on tho Sunday hoforo the firo and told the three Vallis about the let* ter. Thought Mrs Valli was also present. Kelly was staying at Valli's. but neither he nor Flynn was prwent^ -Did not know how Kelly could *know tho contents of the letter. Witness only had it in his possession for between live and six hours. Could not account for Kelly telling tbo Court that he heard accused reading the letter on the Sunday, when witness was there. Could not explain how Flynn knew the contents of the letter ; Valli might have told him: Could not suggest' why they should perjure themselves o»r the subject- Wad only read the newspaper reports of the case ; no one had told him anything. Did not remember anyone reading Fiynn's and Kelly's evidence to him.— To the Magistrate: Neither ' Newton. Crow nor witness had seen the Vallis between the time of the receipt of O'Dowd' 8 letter and the following Sunday. I'ntripk Crow, labourer. Invercargill, deposed that he had been working withlleid's mill- While doing Snillanc's threshing the boy O'Dowd gp.vo Reid a letter. Understood at that time the mill was going to O'Dowda, Did not remember saying anything to Rci'l at that particular time, but referred to jt as they were coming out from dinner. When they got up to *.he mi'l -about '' 12-45, .Real shctwed witness the letter, saying : " This is tt bit t.oujjh.."- Witness corroborated Roid as to its contents. Reid burnt the litler'. saying thatif lie was not good enough »•;> do tho threshing he would not do tne drain ploughing. To the Inspu-j;or : The boy handed the letter to Reid ; il'd not hear what was said. Tho statement in tho letter was not true ; -he m'll could thresh ~><i and sometimes 58 sack. an hour. Reid said nothing in anger when he rend O'Dowd's letter. Tho letlerwit-' liess read Reid put in tbe lir,»hox. Hud known Reid for 12c or 11 years, and the Vallis for 17 yetrs. Heard '.Newton and a man named Seed talking about the loiter as they wero iroiujr -out- trsim dinner ro the miir. rjoulrt not sv-cnr tnnt Hie boy who delivered the . letter wns O'Uowd'a boy jlw Tra- rivliug. Witucsa '-.-"■ -..'■■ - x

was more than two chains away at the time. Ileceived a summons bom Tony Valli on Mouday about 3. 1. a.m, \ ulli told him of Flynn's evidence, t>nd witness told him tbat Flynn could lot have seen the letter as he twituess) hail see* a it burned. Could not swear that it was O'Dowd's letter that was burned. John Patrick Hogan, larm hi.boui.r, Wairio, deposed that he knew .Vnliael Flynn. Saw him on Friday, _4tli July in Thomas Finn's 'yard at W'rev s I'e.sh. between 5.30 and 'i p.m. Had a coieerSation about Valli's arrest. J'i.."n said Valli had been arrested on a Mau-iiieut he (Flynn) made to Detective Mi'.wiij. He said he was sorry, because the f-tate-ruent was not correct. He sai.i . " Joe Valli did not tell me he bad burned down the stacks. He came b/.me at 11.15 that. night and went to bed." Witness said : ;• What made you Rive a false statement to Mc_lvei»_y V" und Flynn' replied, •' I did so because 1 heard that a horse had been tracked out of O'Dowd's paddock with hunting shoes on, and I was frightened that I would be arrested myself, as 1 lad a horse up there with hunting shoes at tHe time." Mentioned the conversation to another person in the locality ; Tuny \;; Hi saw witness, and subpoenaed him. Had no interest in the. case one way or the other. Was not afraid of the Vailis. To the Inspector : Was 'Jj years of ace ami had lived about L' 3 years in iha; leiulity. Was never in Valli's employ. Hid not visit Flynn's hotel frequently — somelimes not for two or three mont ds. Wp.s not a mate of Young Flynn. Had known him from childhood. Could not say whether Flynn gave a sufficient reason for telling the detective such a falsehood. Was not specially I'lenrilv with the Vallis. Knew William Moiton : did not arrange with h.im at ihe eid of 1901 or the beginning of '.*n>_ to cut the tail ofl one of the Valli's horses Could not say that one of the Valli's was watching and caught -Wo'ton in the act. It was not an arrangement between witness aud the Vnllis for Morton to " fall in." Could not say that the Vallis threatened to prosecute unless Morton paid £12. Was known hy life niilcname of " Swamp Jack." Was ci nvjeted in Riverton in 1901 for disturbing the Salvation Army. No one wos present when Flynn made the statement to him ; they separated from the crowd after a hunt. The witness Kelly was a cousin of his (Hogan). Did not toll Cot stable Dwan about Flynn's statement : told a man named Chas. Robinson the following Sunday. Had been in town t very day the case was proceeding, but had not been in Court while Valli'si case was on, nor had Tony Valli been bis constant companion in town. Mr Maealister reserved further evidence and accused was committed for trial at the next sittings of the -.Supreme Court in Invercargill. Mr Maealister asked that bail be a!" lowed.— The Magistrate said that h e had carefully considered the question of bail in the light of an English case, followed in New South Wales. The Knjdish case which gave a ruling on the qiiostion was in 2p Law Journal, new sencs, page 286, entitled "In re Robinson." in which a man was charged with fraudulent bankruptcy, in 1854. at which time a convicted person was liable for that offence to transportation for life, fl'he Court laid down the ruling 'hut it was not a -question of character or the probability of a party appearing to take his trial, but the Court should consider tfce following points: — What is tne nature of the crime, grave or trifling > What is the probability of a conviction under the evidence of the pn.secution '? What is the punishment in the e^ent of a conviction, slight or severe ? This WBS followed in New South Wales in 1892, the case being Regina v. Fraser and Jacobs, assault and robbery, reported- ih 13 N.S.W. Law Reports 1892. Under one aspect of the case the accused persons were liable i-b 10 years, and in another aspect 14 years' imprisonment. There had been an abortive trial, and Judge Windeyer refused bail. A number of: citizens made application to the Chief Justice and others, and affidavits were sworn as to the good character of th.o accused persons. They applied the rule as laid down in re Robinson, and quoted- the judgment accompanying it. He (the Mla^isi.ri\te) did riot think, that this was a case in which bail should be allowed, and he would take /the responsibility of jclusing vjt He would^do sp keeping in view the evidence tendered for the accused, pud ha took it that he • was not crying either his, guilt or his. innocence. In looking over vthe depositions for^the Crown he thought the case -was a strong and consistent one. the punishment was severe, and the offence was a jrrav© one, ; these fact_ combining to bring tne case within the rule qtioted. Bail was. therefore refused. ■ ■■'■:' ' '■ ■ ■ .'-. Mr Maealister said that application would.be made to the Judge in connection with the matter, and "lis Worshjp agreed' to make out the riec-ssary papers as soon as possible.