ALLEGED ARSON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7292, 3 January 1902, Page 2

ALLEGED ARSON.

♦ — ■ ** SOME CURIOUS EVIDENCE. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Messrs G. Payling, W. Prudhoe and Sim, the presiding Justices, Valentine Kiesanowski, on remand, was charged with setting fire to a dwelling-house at Marshland en Dec. 26. Mr Donnelly appeared lor the accused. » Sub-Inspector Black, who conducted the prosecution, called Annie Kiesanowski, wife of th© accused, and was about to examine her, when Mr Donnelly objected, arguing that it was established that a wife couls* not give evidence against her husband, except in cases where the husband committed an offence on his wife's person. Mr Donnelly submitted that a charge of arson waa mot" one of the exceptions-. • The Bench upheld «Mr Donnelly's objection, and Mrs Kiesanowski stood down. Susannah Kiesanowski, daughter of the accused, said ehe lived at Marshland with her father and mother, who did not live very happily together, quarrels being of [frequent occurrence. On the might of Dec. 25 the accused came home about ten o'clock, under the influence of drink. WitnaK had on that night heard him swear at his wife. Had at other times heard him> threaten her. All that he had then said was something in Polish which conveyed \ a threat. Accused 1 then had left the house and gone to his bedroom, which was in a larger hous6 about 9ft from- the xri&sn- building. , She and her mother had gone to bed about half^past twelve. Early in the morning she was awakened- by »her mother, Who exclaimed that the house was burning. Witness discovered that the front room of the house she and her mother were occupying was on fire. On going outside afterwards, she, found, some partially consumed sacks lying against the side of the house. Her mother slept im a building apart from accused, on account of her mother's fear of him, though witness was not afraid of him. In reply to a question from Mr Donnelly, as to whether accused's "wife and family had nbt arranged to have accused charged with arson, after the doctor antMagistrate had refused to send him to the lunatic asylum, the witness said that the family did not desire to get rid of accused, but were afraid of, what he might do. Francis Kiesanowski, a son of the accused, saiid that he had cam© home about 11 p.m. on the anight of Dec. 25, He heard his" father moving about in his room, and about two o'clock in the morning of Dec. 26 he had heard accused come into his room very quietly, returning from outside the house. About fifteen minutes later witness' sister came in, and said the house in which she and her mother were sleeping was on fire. He went to procure water, and when he returned he found his sister pulling away burning sacks from the side of the house. About a square foot was burnt in the wall, close to the ground; The accused denied having set fire to the building. After the fire, he had brought accused to Christchurch, in order {o have him committed to the Asylum, but after examination of the t.ccused, the medical men refused to give the necessary certificate. He took his father back on the -same day, and after discussion ifc was decided to plaoe th* matter of the house-burning in the hand's of the polics The witness was closely cross-examined by Mr Donnelly. ' ' Edward Kiesanowski, another son of accused, gave similar evidence. Constable Flewellyn stated -that he had gone to Mrs Kiesariowski's house on the Friday after the fire and had seen the damage that had heen done to it. A hole had been burnt through a wall and a sofa was scorched, while the wall inside was blackened, to the ceiling. Thi? concluded the case ior the prosecution. Mr Donnelly submitted that was ho case against the accused, who was not agreeing well with his family, who had attempted to hive him committed to a lunatic asylum -after he had made ov«r his property to them. It was only after the doctore had refused to give a certificate of insanity that the accused's family decided to have him prosecuted for arson and so' get rid of him. The alleged threat, in Polish, Mr Donnelly submitted), anight be inierpreted in a wholly different- way. He also submitted that the mere fact that the accused 4 * came in at two o'clock- in the morning was nob evidence thaifc he had set fire to the house, and that generally there wais not* sufficient ground for coinmitting the accused to the {Supreme Court. / The Bench held that a prima facie case had been established, amd committed . the accused for 'trial. . Bail was allowed in one surety o£ £100. . .