THE KAKARAMEA CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19444, 2 November 1925, Page 10

THE KAKARAMEA CASE

SEQUEL TO FIRING TIMBER ACCUSED ACQUITTED. [ The sequel to tho timber firing cast at Kakaramea was heard at the Magistrate’s Court on Saturday morning, | when a witness against the other ac--1 cuscd, John Minogue, was charged that on or about August 13, 1924, he did destroy a quantity of timber, the property of Phyllis Josephine Wills, valued at £24, by wilfully setting fire to it. Detective Gourlay. who appeared for the prosecution, pointed out that a man named Jensen had leased a farm from a Mr Reardon, at Kakaramea, but subsequently got into difiiculties. He left, but eventually returned to Kakaramea, where he worked for a Mr Chamberlain. In the meantime Wills had pulled down the whare erected by Jensen on the farm, and it war this timber that the latter had admitted setting fire to. Chamberlain was informed by Jensen that he had burned the timber, but the accused, when interviewed by Constable Armour, nf Patea, denied all knowledge of the matter. After Mrs Wills had given evidence concerning taking over the farm previously occupied by Jensen, Chamberlain said he instructed Jenson to curt the timber for- Wills, but had no converstion with the accused about the matter. After the fire, accused informed witness that he had nothing to do with the matter, and that he sat on tho road while Jensen went in and applied the match.

In giving evidence, similar to that given by him on Friday, Thomas C. Jensen said that in August, 1924, he was asked to cart some timber for Wills, but did not do it. Accused held a lantern while witness filled a bottle of kerosene. They proceeded to Kaka, ramen, and, on their return, entered Wills’ farm. Accused poured the kerosene on the timber, whilj witness applied the match. Constable Armour, in evidence, explained that the accused had denied all knowledge of the fire, but admitted that he had been on tho road on Lis way to Kakaramea on the night if question. Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., at this stag observed that the case depended on tirely on the evidence of an accom plice, who was committed for sentence The evidence of an accomplice wai admissible, but it was always dangerous, and must always bo received with the utmost caution. In tho present case, His Worship considered it would be quite wrong to send the accused to tho Supreme Court. The case depended on tho evidence of an accomplice, which was in conflict with that of other witnesses. Jensen had admitted telling an untruth, and that ho already had two charges against him. His Worship felt certain that tho judge would instruct tho jury it was their duty to acquit the prisoner, and ha considered it bis duty, therefore, to dismiss the information. The accused was then discharged.