ALLEGED ARSON AND FALSE DECLARATION.

Colonist, Volume LVI, Issue 13420, 18 March 1914, Page 4 (Supplement)

ALLEGED ARSON AND FALSE DECLARATION.

Henry Edward Whitford was charged with having on 7th May, 1913, set fire to a house at Stoke; and with, on May Bth, 1913, having made a false declaration in the claim for insurance.

Mr. C. R. Fell appeared for the Crown, and Mr. A. T. Maginnity for the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, which were taken together. The following were the jury:— Messrs. J. Morgan (foreman), A. J. Fittall, E. A. Sherwood, A. Wilkie, A. H. Barltrop, A. Stagg, H. Newport, J. G. Wilkens, F. Greenslade, A. Fawoett, J. R. Sharp, and C. Large. The evidence which was taken at the hearing in the Magistrate's Court and at the last sittings of the Supreme Court has already been published at length. It was alleged for the prosecution that accused had set fire to a cottage at Stoke, occupied by himself and Edward Best, and owned by William Best, in order to obtain the insurance on the effects in the cottage. In the proof of loss, signed by witness, certain items were claimed for which it was alleged were not in the cottage, and others were over valued, hence the charge of making a false declaration. The witnesses called were Mr. Evans, S.M., Messrs. W. Best, George M. Rout, Griffin, Lock, J. Smith, Constables Sheary and Townsend. At a quarter to four the counsels' addresses commenced, and they were brief. The Chief Justice then summed up. His Honour impressed upon the jury that they had nothing to do with anything they heard outside against or "for the accused, they had only to deal with the evidence produced in Court. With regard to the first charge: was the fire a wilful or accidental one? If wilful, was there any, motive? Why did the accused light a &£ at all that night ? If there was no benzine in the building, how was the sudden mass of flames to be accounted for? Why did accused go to the place on a night when he knew that Best would be away? With regard to the second charge the accused had admitted that a number of things had been wrongly included in the statement of accused's loss by the fire. After retiring about 50 minutes the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty on both charges, and the accused was discharged.