JURY DISAGREE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 816, 13 May 1910, Page 6

JURY DISAGREE.

RUTLAND HOTEL ARSON CHARGES-RE-TRIAL ON MONDAY. THEOET OF PBOSECUTION. Charged on five counts, Joseph Paul Davis and Martin Haines, jewellers and fancy goods dealers, again appeared on trial yesterday, before his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stoiit) and a jury of twelve. The charges relating to the explosion and tire on the premises of tlio Rutland Hotel,. Wanganui, were- set out in yesterday's i6sue. Mr. Wilford appeared for accused, and Mr. Myers prosecuted.

James Colin Campbell, manager of tie Bank of Now South Wales at Wanganui, stated that, on January 11, Davis had a credit balance in the bank of £8 2s-. sd. During January, he (Davie) had dishonoured a number of bills.

A description of the explosion and fire was given by Constable Thornpson, who also expressed the opinion, from his experience as a mineT, that the explosion was not caused by gelignite, gunpowder, or other materials commonly used in mining. Could Gas Have Caused It? The gasfitter, George Anderson, and a gasworks manager, Granville D. Stone, described the fittings in the shop. The latter witness stated that i't was impossible for sufficient gas to have escaped to cause such an explosion.. If this had been an explosion of coal gas, a person in the building at the time could not possibly escape without severe burning. Under cross-examination, the witness added that, if the pipes along the ceiling had been defective, a quantity of gas might collected in the roof without being readily noticeable to persons in the shop. Thomas Parghetter gave evidence as to finding a "plant" 'of valuables at the Arcadia Private Hotel, where bolh of the accused were staying. The valuables were hidden up "near the roof. Recognising these articles as similar to the stock which he had seen in Davis's . shop, he had communicated with the police. Particulars of the scene at the fire were given by Detective Siildells. Witness saw Haines among the debris, searching with n lantern, "for a puree containing .030." On being asked to do so, Haines furnished a statement of his movements on the night of the fire, asserting that Hie explosion occurred when he came into the shop from u small office at the back, where he bad been book-keeping. On striking a match to light his pipe, the whole shop burst into flames. The week's takings (about w£6o). had been left; in a hand-bag on one of the glass cases near the door, Haines having intended to pick it up as he left the premises to go home. He had, however (so he said), escaped by the back door. Hnines was burned on the face and hands, and his clothing singed. Interviewing TJavis later, the witness was informed that about ,£4OO had been paid away during January, and the tak T ings of tho business were from £40 to £if> per week.. Davis had stated that it was not reasonable to suggest that Haines had robbed him and set fire to the shop. Ho gave the detective to understand that they had everything to lose from a fire. For a period of five weeks (including Christmas week) the average -weekly takings were about .£2O.

In cross-examination, Detective Siddells ndmitted that three days after tho fire, Haine3 was practically blind, because of tho injuries he had roceived.

William E. Beauchamp-Platts, insurance adjuster, was recalled for the purpose of describing Haines's condition after the fire. A Scattered Stock—and Why? Cecil JI. Haggett, manager for the New Zealand Express Company at Wanganui, stated that on January 9 or 10, Davis asked for a quotation for sending goods to Nelson. When' the goods were being forwarded, Davis stated that there was no necessity to insure them, as none were of great value. James Eobinson, carrier, of Wanganui, stated that, acting under instructions from Haines, he took a box from Davis's shop to the railway' station. Davis left by train with the box. Malcolm Stewart, auctioneer, of ,Nolson, stated that lie was introduced to Davis by the manager of the auction rooms, who said that an auction sale was to bo held of electro-plated goods, tho property of Davis. He heard it remarked that about ,£7OO worth of goods would be offered for sale. ' The goods arrived on January 18 and Davis stated that ho would iusure four packages at .£2OO, valuing them at £350. This figure did not include a Bin nil packago placed in one of tho safes, said to contain watches. Davis said that his agent would be coming to Nelson in a few days, and witness was given to understand that more goods would shortly arrive. Davis gave instructions that the name of tho owner of tho goods was not to bo disclosed in the advertisement. Before any sale took place at Nelson the police took charge of the goods.

Under cross-examination Stewart said that Davis undertook tho transaction quite openly, under his own name.

In re-examinatfira by Mr. Myers, witness added that Davis gave the address of his chief place of business as 142 Lambton Quay, Wellington. Frances Merlinb, restaurant-keeper.. at Nelson, stated that Davis came to her and asked for tho name of an auctioneer. Hβ also left a case in her care, and it remained under a table until tho police came for it. On February 2 she received a registered letter from Davis in Wanganui stating that he would be back in Nelson in a fortnight, and asking her not to say anything about the box.

Sergeant Bnrke, of Wanganui, gave evidence regarding the finding of the goods and books of the business in the roof of tho Arcadia Private Hotel. Davis, on being questioned, said: "Some of those goods I had with me on the West Coast, and others I had in my room." He said also that he did not want people to seo them, and that he felt sure that tho insurance companies would not mind his having them. When Davis was arrested on ,a charge of counselling Haines to set fire to tho premises, he said that he had no idea that Haines had any goods concealed in the roof of the building.

Edward S. Byan, late manager for Eyan Bros., jewellers, of Wellington, said that he had valued certain of tho goods at .£164. v Dominion Analyst's Theory. Dr. J. S. Maclaurin, Dominion analyst, and inspector of explosives, stated that,' from his examination of the premises, ho could say that the explosion' was not caused by gelignite or gunpowder. It might have been caused by coal gas petroleum oil, petrol, benzine, naphtha or similar oil. He considered that one of these light oils had been' sprayed or poured over the goods. If the oil became thoroughly vaporised, six gallons would havo saturated tho whole of tho air in tho building, but half of that amonnt would have caused an explosion. It was unlikely that gas had caused tho explosion, because gas (jame did not readily ignite combnstibl© 'articles. Ho had made experiments with coal gos explosions (tho best mixture), and found that rough edges of articles wero burned. Further, sufficient gas could not have escaped to cause such a violent explosion. Hβ was of opinion that one of the hydro-carbons hnd been used.

Constable Wilson, of Wanganui, gave particulars of the arrest of Haines. This concluded tho case for the prosecution, and Mr. AVilford, on being asked by his Honour if ho proposed to call evidence, said that ho would rely upon the statements previously made by tho accused.

In addressing tho jury, Mr. Myers said that the caso was ono between the country and tho accused. The insurance companies did not come into the matter at all. It was a remarkable fact, said tho Crown Prosecutor, that there was no explanution us to what had liccomo of the box containing the valuable Itotherain and Walthnm watches.

Mr. Wilford complained to tho jury that tho Crown had' prejudiced them in their dealing with the case at the outset by referring to tho fact that a Wellington man. Baker, had written to men in Wanganui about the use of explosives.

stating also that Baker, although many miles away, was arrested and punished after the men to whom he wrote the letter had been imprisoned ior breaking and entering. The case for the Crown was nothing but a scheme of insinuation and suggestion from beginning to end, and the letter, put in at the last moment, written by Davis to Haines, was intended to suggest to tho jury that there was some direction to Haines as to tho explosion and fire. The Crown would have the jury believe that Haines locked himself in, and then blew the placo up. His Honour's Direction. :/ His Honour the Chief 'Justice, in eumming up, remarked that tho case was an important one,' involving serious charges. The jury had -to get at the origin of the fire. AVas it wilful or accidental? According to Haines, unless there had been an escape of gas, the explosion could not hav'o occurred. That was the theory Haines had put forward. If the jury were of opinion that no escapo of gas had occurred, there was an end to the defence. Had there been an escape of gas up till 10.30 p.m., oustomers must surely have smelt it. TheTe was, therefore, only an hour and a half in which the gas might have accumulated, and, if the whole pressure had been allowed to come through Hie pipe, without any interruption, during that time, there was the evidence of the gas manager that there could not have been sufficient gas accumulated to cause this explosion. There was an end to the suggestion that coal gas exploded. Dr. Maclaurin attributed the explosion to the igniting of some oil sprayed over Ihe goods, and if this were the true solution who sprayed it? Haines must have done it, because he was the only ono in tho shop. He might have struck a mctch to light the fire, thinking he wouk ! . have time to get out safely. These goods were insured under a floating policy, and were only "covered when stored in these premises. Tho owners had a right to take them out to sell them, but not to secrete them. Why had the goods been taken away and secreted in the Arcadia Hotel? The suggestion of the Crown was that the goods had been taken out to avoid their destruction, and, after the fire,"Davis said that , he had no goods outside the shop. It had been shown that he had £5U worth of goods in Nelson. Tho only evidence against Davis of being an accessory after the fact was that he gave false evidence as' to the disposal of the goods afterwards. Was it reasonable to suggest that all of the more valuable watches had been blown out and picked up by spectators at the fire, while only remains of the cheaper ones were found in the debris? Giving every concession to tho prisoners, it would appear, from the figuTes, that the stock in the shop was worth only ,£llOO, whereas they bad given it at. over..£2ooo. Why had untruo statements been made about tie stock and about the books?' Wa9 this evidence of guilt? ' No Finding. Tho jury returned to Court at 10 p.m., after having been out for just over four hours, and the foreman intimated that they had been unable to agree upon a verdict, and that there.was no possibility of arriving at an agreement. Mr. Myers asked for a new trial, and pointed out that, as there were about 30 witnesses from distant parts, the expense to tine- country was great, and it was important that no delay should be allowed. The Crown would be prepared to go on with the trial to-day. Mr. Wilford remarked that it would bo most inconvenient for him if the trial were- fixdd for to-day. 'He was instructed from Wanganui, and he did not know whether he would bo defending tho accused a second time.

It was finally agreed that the new trial should not bo commenced before Monday. ;