CHARGE OF WILFUL MURDER.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 497, 14 August 1871, Page 2

CHARGE OF WILFUL MURDER.

Ok the 7th irial., at.the Resident Magistrate's Court, Wariganui, Henry Elliott, was charged with wilful murder, by setting fire to the Wangaihui Hotel, by which a man named Peter Finn, who was sleeping in the building, was burned to death. After the hearing of a great deal of evidence, Elliott was discharged, andithe proprietor of the Hotel, John McKunzie MoDonald, was plnocd ia the dock, and committed for wilful murder, to lake his trial at Wellington. The Wanginui Chronicle makes the following remarks on jthe case : —" A public house, with pcoplo'sieeping in it, unconscious of danger, is deliberately fired, if not by the proprietor, most certainly (by his own confession) with his knowledge and consent. The bouse is totally destroyed and worse still a man is^burnod to death in the flames. , Thu proprietor tells the no tfayapers — tells everyone he meets —that hi)' has saved v. single chair—no more, —while nil tho time lie has a variety of articlessuorotcd,: uud oarriua about with him, under a fawning and oily manner, the guilty seurefc of incendiarism.- Whatever come of it it is already quito manifest that ho is a dangerous man iv a community. And tho astonishing part of tho business—tho. part that to ordinary common sonso remains inexplicable) is this —that a man sliould rush into such a crime for a nictivo co "small. Supposing lie could hove got tho whole of tho insurance moneys, £650 in all, which was exceedingly doubtful, what aro they, or what good.could they have dono him. Bui. lia should have known, or tho slightest reflection, must have told:him, that he could not get thoso monoys ? The property, as we understand it, was insured (for ±'400, iv his .brother's mime,. not his, and ~oveu lwl if., not bocn s.i, the i mortgagee iinuat have tiikeu oaiv to sou the sum expended, in the re-eroetioii of another building, as security for the money advanced, which was : more by #100 than the amount of the insurance policy.

DISTRICT OQUHT.— Monday. [Before Thos.Bepkhami -jEsq., District Judge.] The bi-monthly sitting of this Court was held this morning, when the following business was disposed of:—r Pabsoks and Ho&an t. Dybb.—Claim £-19 Is Id.—Mr. Miller .for tlw -plaintiff, Mr. Hesketh-for-thfldefendantj/whoconfessedjudji-ment for.the amount, less £1 6s 6d, which w»s taken, and the matter settled. ' • ;. - E. Poetbb v. J. P. HAMLiN.^-Ciaim £32 10s.—Mr. J. Bussell for the plaintiff,, who proved the debt, and judgment passed for the plaintiff. Isaacs & Co. t.SoiomonFbiedman.—Claim £60 3s lid. Mr. J. Bussell for the plaintiff. —This was an action for goods supplied. The debt was proved by Mr. Henry Issues. - ■ Mr.J. Russell asked for speedy execution, as he was instructed that the defendant was being prosecuted for .perjury, -and was making away with his property. His Honor thought the application should be made upon affidavit, but if the plaintiff were sworn to his belief in the matter that might bo sufficient. The plain--1 tiff was recalled, and swore that unless immediate execution issued his claim would be in jeopardy* ■, Judgment for plaintiff, with immediate execution.

Lamb v. Attckland Consolidated QoirD Mining Company.—This was an application for a winding-up order, so as to put the com-;: pany into the bands of the official agent. The company has been some time in process of a voluntary winding up. Mr. Lusk, who supported the application, said that the application was made to bring the whole of the affairs of the company to a satisfactoi/ settlement. —His Honor thought that notice of the intention of the plaintiff.to make tbe application should have been given, and adjourned the hearing to naxt Court-day, to afford an opportunity of doing so. Folk? v. Bowee.—Claim £29 Is.—Mr. J. RUssoll appeared for "the plaintiff, Mr^HesItolb for the defence.—The plaintiff, Dennis Foley, wiis a storekeeper at Makctu, and supplied the go.pds mentioned in; the bill of particulars to the defendant.—Edmund" Poley proved that he was in the store when Captain Bower wrote the order for the goods. The defendant had been subsequently asked for payment, but ho said that it would be all right when Captain Percival/fche paymaster, came down. The defence was, that , the sum sued for was not due; that he had paid upon account an order for £21 Is 6d. The witness swore positively that the monoy had never been paid either to himself or his son.—Mr. JXesketh said' he had a letter of instruction to the effect that, every sixpence ; of tliis money had been paid. Moreover, by the manner in which the action was brought they r were dividing the cause of action. He thought' it a little extraordinary that the real plaintiffdid not appear, and his father was called to' prove' the case.—Mr Bussell contended that proof of a debt by agent was a thing of. frequent occurrence.—' His Honor said the order was made payable, to E. IToley, and not to D. Foley. It appeured to' the Court that the evidence was too tin-' satisfactory to enable the Court to givo judgr ment upon it. Lewis v. Fitzgbbald.— Claim £37 135.7 d. —Mr. Hesketh for plaintiff, Mr. Bees for the defendant.—Allegations of the plaintiff were to the effect that plaintiff allowed defendant to place six bead of cattle in his"paddock," two of them to be milch cows, and plaintiff to have the milk. The defendant, however, it was staled, had put fourteen head of cattle, and afterwards twenty-nine head, and there was not one milch cow amongst them. The defendant said the plaintiff- had 'purchased the property from him, and the grazing of the cattle by plaintiff was per agreement. The defendant 60ld I lid property to plaintiff-for £700, giving five years to pay it. It wns agreed-to allow the bills to bt» post dated, on condition that defendant's cattle mig'.it graze in the paddocks during the interim. Plaintiff had no cattle to put in the paddocks at that time. The property referred to was an hotel and store, with 67; acres of gnus paddocks attached. Tho plaintiff denied the statement of the defendant in the essential particulars set out in the declaration. He said that he supplied goods to tho defendant, and his mod, for whiehhe charged. "There were several items, such as a beer-engine, stove, and other articles, about which Ihero was a dispute as to whether they were sold with propefrty' "and goodwill or separately. Tho property referred to is situated at Ohapa. The examination and cross-examination of the witness occupied a very long time, having to speak to a great number and variety of details.