MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2611, 30 June 1871, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor and the Hon. Dr. Buchanan, J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. Walter Rogers was fined 20s, or three days’ imprisonment; and Minnie Crawford, alias Susan Dooherty, 40s, or a week’s hard labor. THEFT. Margaret Stewart was sentenced to a month’s hard labor for stealing a bottle of gin from the Caledonian Hotel, Walker street. THE PRINCES STREET FIRE. The hearing of the charge of arson preferred against F. W. Reichelt was proceeded with, Noonan, shopman to the prisoner, was recalled, and subjected to a long examination and cross-examination. He wished to correct an error he had fallen into at the previous enquiry. He had stated that stock was taken at Christmas last; he now wished to say that it was at Christmas, 1869, that stock was taken. He then explained that his previous erroneous impression had been corrected through conversations with one of the witnesses named Doring, but firmly denied that it was owing to any communication with Mr Barton. Miss Cane was also examined. She denied all recollection of having ever expressed an opinion that the place must have been set on fire, as she found the office window propped up with a stick, John Garrett, exp essman, deposed to removing goods from Reichelt’s to Goldammer’a ; it was done at about noon ; and there was no concealment about the matter.

Mrs Howard repeated a great deal of the evidence given by her at the Coroner’s inquiry. In answer to Mr Barton the witness sa d from her knowledge of the prisoner’s previous character, she did not believe he intentionally burnt down the place; she thought he would have been the last man to do it. Had the fire extended to the shop of her husband, it would have deprived herself, husband, and Mr Raymond of their whole means of support. She knew about Botticher, that Reichelt had started him in life without money—she meant given him credit, as prisoner told her so himself. He also told her about Goldammer; on one occasion w hen she was asking about Goldammer to do some jobs for her, Reichelt said he pited Goldammer ; and that he intended to give him a a start. During the time witness knew Reichelt, his character had been that of a generous man. On the morning of the fire Sergeant O’Keefe and Detective Jarrell visited her place at or before daylight, for the first time. They asked witness for the clothes Reichelt wore the night before, and she gave her servant directions to get them. She thought she asked Farrell to allow her to search the pockets to see if there was any money in them. She did so in Fan ell’s Eresence; she was sure she did not draw a ey from them. If Farrell had sworn that he saw her take a large key from the pockets it was not true. That same morning she left her house at 8 30 and returned at 1.30 p.m. If Farrell swore that he saw her at her house when he went there at 10 a.m., it was not true. She was perfectly sure about it, for at about 10 o’clock she was engaged at the shop. It was not true that Mr Barton’s clerk was at her house before the police oil the morning of the fire. Mr Randolph Creagh had been an intimate friend of her family for many years; during her husband’s illness he had been assisting in attending on her husband; and had slept in witness’s house every night, except the night before the fire, when ne went home to get a night’s rest. She had never told the police what evidence she w r as prepared to give j she had not deviated from her evidence, in consequence of anything said to her by Mr Barton’s clerk ; nor had there been any tampering with her or with anyone in her house by Mr Barton’s clerk. What Reichelt said about G' Idammer, was said about a fortnight before the fire. The conversation arose through witness remarking that she had seen that Goldammer, who had worked for her, had failed. Prisoner replied, “Yes, I pity him very much. I intend to help him to a start;” or, “1 shall start him”—or words to that effect. The witness then proceeded to correct a passage in her evidence before the coroner. She now stated that she intended to say that the key given to the police was taken from Eeicbelt’s clothes;

but not from the coat that was produced on the occasion of their first risit; nor did she swear that she gave the key to the police then. Lyiiia Perkins, servant to Mrs Howard, was examined at some length, [l.eft sitting.]