WADESTOWN FIRE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 830, 31 May 1910, Page 9

WADESTOWN FIRE.

NO COUNSEL FOR THIRD TRIAL. FINDING OF GUILTY. A young cabinetmaker, fiberhnrdt Ferdinand Homier, was tried for thn third time in (ho Supreme Court yesterday on u charge of having committed arson at Wadestown on December 28 last. The ease had been heard during the February sittings, and again last Thursday, and on both occasions the jury failed to agree upon a verdict. At the second trial tho foreman asked if an eleven-twelfths majority could bring ill a vijrdict, but the Chief Justice pointed out that the law required unanimity. On his two previous trials Eenner was represented by different counsel (by Mr. C. P. • Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. Crocroft Wilson at the. first trial, and by Mr. T. SI. Wilford and Mr. Cracroft Wilson at the . second), but yesterday when his name was callcd no barrister appeared, and his Honour asked Eenner if he was going to conduct his own case. Ho replied: Yes. I have had two trials already, your Honour. Tho first cost mo JjoO, and tlio second ' His Honour: I can't go into that, you know. Accused, who asked that he might have opportunity to refer to his numerous papers, was allowed to leave the dock, and was accommodated with a seat at one ,of tho lawyer's tables. A warder stood behind him. Mr. W. H. D. Bell conducted the prosecution. Tho evidence for the Crown was identical with that tendered at last week's trial. The house in which tho fire occurred. was :i four-roomed wooden dwelling, owned by Eenner, and wan unoccupied at tho time of tho fire. The previous tenant, Simon Fraser, liad lett ino houso on December 27, the day before the lire. On tho night of tho fire Eenner whs seen by Mrs. Watt, a next-door neighbour, dragging a wicker clmir across the back yard towards the empty house. The chair' was in flames. Mrs. Watt called across the fence, "What are you doing, Mr. Kenner?" but received no reply. Shortly afterwards Renner came to tho dividing fcnce, and said that his house was on lire. Mrs. Watt gave the alarm, and removed lier children from the house. When Detective Hammond inquired into tho facts of the firo li-en-ner made a statement that he had been burning some rubbish in the kitchen range, and cleaning up the rooms in order that the house might be in readiness when tho new tenant moved in on tho following day. The house, which was not .completely destroyed, was insured lu tho Commercial Union office for .£350. Kenner had stated that he had purchased the scction for <£170, and the house cost him <£430 to build. ■ He had been negotiating to sell the house, upon terms, to William Burns, for iMO, and the tenant had agreed to complete tho purchase provided that ho found the liouso'satisfactory after having lived in it. for thrc-e months. Eenner was found lying insensible by neighbours who assembled to assist in putting out' tho lire. The witnesses for ilie prosecution were: Henry Edward Manning (builder and valuator), Herbert Walter Hawke (accountant in the Commercial Union Office), Mrs. Sarah Watt, Mrs.. Maggie. Burns, William Burns (bookbinder), Simon Fraser (driver), Mrs. Fraser, liobert James Watt (grocer's assistant), William Henry Edwards (builder), Thomas Williamson Ward (builder),. Constable Mullooly, and Dctective Hammond. The jury proceeded to Wadestown to view the premises. For the defense, William Alexuudet Thomson, land and estate agent, .was called. He stated that the houso was placcd in the hands of his firm for sale at £550. Evidence as to house values was given bv Charles Harnian (builder), Frederick Henry Myers (builder), and Albert August Renner (joiner, and a brother of the accused). William Charles Noot (painter and paperhanger) also gave evidence. In • addressing tho jury, B-enner remarked I hat no was in a sad position. He was in poor circumstances, having been unablo to , afford the, fee of counsel for his third trial. He had had JEIO in his pocket, but— His Honour interrupted, pointing out tlmt Eenner might with fairness say simply; "I have not been able to procure counsel to appear for me," but he must not go into the cause for tho purpose of swaying tho jury in dealing with tho case. Eenner: Well, j-our Honour, I have no desire that the jury should decide the case on such points as those, but I only want to point out that I have had to work up my own case at very short notice, and I am not used to this kind of thing. I don't know the ways of the Court. His Honour: If you were suffering inconvenience, I should havo been perfectly willing to order a delay, so tlmt you might get:a lawyer to appear.for you. If you had told mo that you oould not procure counsel, I mijjht havo been ablo to havo a counsel assigned for you, but you made no application. In summing up, his Honour lemaTked that the facts had surprised ]iim when he came to search for motive. The jury might take it that tho houso was not over-insured. The house was subject to a Mortgage of ,£348, and Eenner might, have wanted tho insuranc« money to pay off tho mortgago. He would then have had tlie land to sell. Tho jury retired at 4.40 o'clock, and returned in exactly one hour, with a verdict, of ■ "Guilty." His Honour remarked that the case might be one for probation. He would defer sentence until Wednesday morning, and in the meantime Mr. Millington, the probation officer, would furnish a report. Eenner: May I bo allowed on bail, your Honour? His Honour: No; I cannot allow that. I may soy that I always believe in giving young men a chance, and if you had pleaded guilty to your crime, you would havo been saved all tho expense, and the ivhole thing would have been settled, Yo.u would not have gon© to gaol at all. However, I hope to see my way to let you out on probation. I hare no doubt it will be a lesson to you."