SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2674, 12 September 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman,) ALLEGED ARSON. The trial of F. W. Reichclt, charged with setting fire to his shop in Princes street, was resumed this morning. His Honor addressing the jury, said : Gentlemen of the jury. Wo have arrived fortunately at the last stage of this lengthened inquiry, and it becomes my duty to make a few observations on the salient points of the case. The matter has been so thoroughly discussed by learned counsel on both sides, and 1 have observed you have paid so very careful attention to tbe evidence, that I think I shall be able to contract my observations within a reasonable limit. The prisoner is indicted for setting fire to bis premises in Princes street, with intent to defraud the New Zealand Insurance Company, and there is another count substantially the same, namely, setting fire to his premises with intent to defraud. The evidence in this case, as indeed in all cases of ■ a r similar nature, is necessarily qircipnstantial.'/ Thai is'to say, 'a number of facts are brought before a jury from which they are to decide as to the guilt or innocence of a prisoner. There is a common prejudice against ciicinnstantial evidence, which has not much foundation. It is, however, some slight foundation, and it becomes the duty of a jury to watch it narrowly. so that when they snm up the inferences from each part of the evidence, they shall satisfy themselves before delivering a verdict for or against the prisoner that it fully hears upon the case. In case there is any reasonable doubt of the guilt of a prisoner you must acquit him— probably there never was a case in which, in the course of its progress, some doubt did not arise in tbe mind of a jury ; but a reasonable doubt is this, that when, after examining the whole of the circumstances, having resolved the little doubts as they occur, there still remains a doubt,.the prisoner must have the benefit of it. In this case there is no doubt insurances were effected in three insurance companies, as proved by their agents who were put into the box. From the facts, it appears lie was insured to the amount of 1.1800, and this fact includes the question of motive. That has this effect—lf the evidence is so clear that the jury are convinced the prisoner is guilty or not guilty, then enquiry into motive is of very little consequence. Thus, in case of murder, the facts arc clear if a prisoner' has been seen to assault his victim and death ensues ; but where facts are capable of being explained in one way or another, it becomes very important to inquire whether there was a motive to commit a crime or not. If that motive pervades the whole case, it becomes necessary for the jury to review the whole case to establish the crime. Such was the case of the celebrated trial of Palmer for murder, for the death with which he was •barged with causing was capable of being referred to natural causes. It was therefore of the highest importance to ascertain whether he had a motive in the death of his victim, and hence the reason why the evidence as to motive was so elaborated. In this case the evidence for the Crown is, that the prisoner wont deliberately to his shop and did deliberately set it ou fire for the purpose of defrauding the Insurance Companies ; whereas the other hypothesis set np by himself is that the fire occurred through accident. Both hypotheses are possible, and therefore it is necessary to inquire whether there was sufficient motive for an immoral man to do so. The facts regarding the state of tbe stock at tbe time of the fire are very conflicting : most of the evidence is very vague. It was perhaps impossible to obtain better, unless the prisoner had preserved evidence to guide the jury. The learned counsel on both sides had no doubt been embarrassed by the difficulties of this part of the question, and have been obliged to put up with the best that could be procured for their respective clients. A starting point had, however, been pretty well ascertained ; for in the month of .June, 1870, there was a proper stock-taking, and the result was the prisoner’s stock was valued at L 921. The further evidence of a great number of witnesses showed that hia stock was a good stock, that hia shop was fairly stocked, and that it bore the appearance of a flourishing business. More might lie said, for I think it was fairly proved there were no shams—dummies as they are called, That is, to the eye of an experienced man, what it appeared to beou the outside, it was on the inside—it was a well-stocked shop from beginning to eud, and in a well stocked shop, with stock of LIOOO value, it would not appear to be bettor stocked with one of higher value. But those witnesses go further than merely saying it was a well stocked shop, Nolan, who was best able to judge, states that the value of the stock was about L 2,000, and that is confirmed by two other witnesses; but then that was, after all a rough guess. Each, in crossexamination, admitted it would be very difficult to value the stock within LoOO by merely glancing at it. A man might say it is worth L2,ooo—a little more or a little less. It is but a case of greater or less assurance, according to the experience and means of judging of the person who gives the valuation. Then we come to other modes of valuation, one of which is the “ declared yah/p. ” of the goods. Naturally the counsel for the (Jroynx seizes on this valuation, and invites y.pti to it as its fmc value. I have no doubt thy re me many gentlemen on the jury that know .the. faejt; touching declared values better than leaded cyuflsel or myself can possibly know t^emami it }s you to say whether ryasopaMo' reliance ckh be placed upon declaredvaine?. MrLjiztyhs j says as to the deelared value, it is no,t for, duty, and may deviate considerably from the true value He states the gooffs spoken of were worth about L 450, or he should say in round numbers Luoo, and this is borne out by tbe fact, that all the valuations are in round numbers. This seems against the prisoner if he furnished the declared value Iflmscjf, though it should not be taken as a conclusive circumstance against him. Then yon have values furnished by himself to the /juttfi kcpountatit, Schofield. He gave him invoices to Wake ■. out a book-stock account. That was not a stock taking, for the evidence shewed th at the customary terms for taking stock were ffune and January. ' Mr By.rf.on : It was not for the purpose of taking'sfiookj was for the purpose of making a valuation io .ascertain his position. His Honor ; I called it stock taken, and think I am justified in using the jterm. A great many of these valuations tally pretty nearly with the valuations of Mr Hauman. The one that fails most is with ,

regard to goods by the jtficol FJenpng. They are valued at L2OO though Mr Hauman, the Custom Honsd broker, says it was a low ,-valu.ation, and you will cnbclude the same, for it is put down by Schofield. Wo have not the invoices: ‘they were burnt, and that evidence was admitted on the principle that where written documents are shewn to be destroyed, secondary evidence is admissible, but it’s value is left to the judgment of the jury. While, therefore, the value of L2OO for the goods might appear small, the sura of L 1275 may appear to you large, and you arc entitled to look at the general valuation to ascertain if there is anything egrogiously large in this. London was called on to confirm this, but his evidence does not come up to that mark. Mr Tennant was tailed in reference to goods by the Otago. He says the prisoner received no goods by the Otago in 1870, hut did on her previous voyage in 1860. Was then the invoice presented to Schofield altogether false, or was it, as suggested by Mr Barton, that the goods came by some other vessel? That is a point that seems to me may be easily cleared up. Mr Barton says he could not examine the prisoner, and therefore his explanation is excluded by the policy of the law. That is trite, but {this certainly grpight Jbave. been done. The prisoner is in communication with his legal advisers, and he might have suggested, “ I ceriainlyS|did‘not receive the goods by the Otago. They were intended to have been shipped by her—that is a genuine invoice, and I received the goods by such a ship.” Along time would elapse since the goods were received, if these goods were put down in stock as having arrived in 1870. If they had not arrived they formed on part of his stock ; The invoice might be true, the shipment true; but they were only expected goods. ■. Therefore, to force them into stock, and form a valuation on that stock, they must have arrived n another ship, and no doubt that was a fact that might have been cleared up by evidence. Mr Hauman gave one small valuation as having bern made in 1871, and said that was all. He gave no such valuation as could possibly attach to the goods alleged to have been received by the Otago—but they could not have been received by that vessel, as there were no such goods on board. That amount must be, therefore, deducted from, any valuation, and give the prisoner the benefit, if you think you ought to attach it to goods in stock. You then coma to the next stage of goods bought in this market. According to Mr Hayman’s evidence, he sold him LSOO worth of goods on the whole, and had transactions with him fol- more than three years. Pri na fade, the fair way is to suppose the transactions pretty equal. Mr Smith has suggested an allowance of a large amount, but you must'eonsider what portion of that LSOO worth of goods was placed in 1 that shop in the year commencing 1870, and ending June 1871, and add that to the total value. That is all the evidence we have. What are the deductions to be made from that ? The weekly sales. Yoon on says they were about L4O. Forty multiplied by fifty would amount to L2OO, but it would be unfair to deduct that, for weekly sales are at retail p ices and at retailers profits: and, inasmuch as they are not wholesale value, you ought not to deduct the actual wholesale value from the value of the goods that came into the store. You must also deduct the value of the goo Is sent to Goldammer. I shall not trouble you much with (that. Five witnesses gave evipence confirming that of Mendelssohn. They said L4lB, but I think you will come to the conclusion his allowance for expenses was exaggerated. The next witness was Boycs, who valued them at L 325 ; and there is this singular fact connected with this valuation, that two witnesses pretty nearly agree—one makes the value L 239, and the other L 298 ; Mander on the other hand, does not va'ue them so high—he values them, with expenses, at L3OO, and Mendelssohn, for the defence, at L 312. You have to say, from consideration of those values, what was the wholesale value, and whatever it was, deduct it from the st'>ck, for it was put altogether out of the risk of fire. After carefully going through this process, you must see whether it leads to a motive to (induce a dishonest man,'burning down his house, for the purpose for which this evidence is placed before you. I now come to the lease, and undoubtedly the two covenants do appear to bear out jwliat was} said by Mr Snpth, In the first place, in the case o fire under the covenants in the original lease made by Griffin, and to which the prisoner bads himself under lease, dated IBth March, 1871, he was bound jto rebuild to the gxtent of L60I). He would receive LSOO from the Insurance Company, so that he would lose LIOO. That is to say, during the currency of the lease he is compelled to substitute for the wooden building a more substantial building of brick. That probably would post 1*601). We cannot suppose it to cost more for that ip all he was compelled- to lay out. 1 If an acch dental fire took place what was his position ’ He was compelled to lay out L6OO without compensation from the insurance Company or any other person, whereas he would only get LSOO. On the face of it no motive was suggested, but that must not be considered conclusive, for it may happen when you come to work out the stock, you may find he would be a gainer by the amount paid for insurance on stock to a fat greater amount than he lost for the lease. The extent to which motive is involved, on these considerations you must determine. Undoubtedly the first part of suspicion was raised by the prisons, himself. You have the evidence of the policeman, on the morning of the fire. His attention was first called by the ,fire bell while sitting in the Police fjtatiou. He rushed down and saw the prisoner walking on the other side of the street. H9 out “ Hollo mate, whore’s the fire ’V 1 Th ail probability had ho called opt V' I dpwt'Mloiy;? I:oJ,lwng more might have occurred, iojc 'the,fVii‘mothmg i/nusual in a man walking in the street b'daitg Recognised at two. o'clock in the morning. If he had made a bold answer, thoro would have been no matter, but his conduct was such as to create suspicion and it is not on suspicion that a man is to he condemned in this or any other Court. But what was his conduct ? Instead of stopping, he quickens his pace up the street, is fallowed, and finding. the pimblo feet of the policeman too ihucii'fQr ium, Ls doubles, as the polio aman ran in purs lift, ; ‘ap:d jrb* is above, and baited by O’Keefe tfo 'stop fiiim, knocks him down, WJjep taken to the police ‘'fetation , he was found to have csrtsm mark* of flro on his face and coat, and with the fire bell ringing, there was cause for his detention. O’Keefe wont to the scene of the fire, bnfc before lie returned the prisoner made a communication. The first observation I have to make is thftt pice use of language should not be looked for ia a fereiguer—nor in ,au un-

educated countryman of our own. A fordoing who should consider that rule especially with regard to foreigners. .Very properly no great weight was attached by Mr Smith to tbe disc of the term candlo by the prisoner, • for in his written statement hs says he. approached the lucine case with a candle. In his own language there is no other word for light. There is another word for candle, but it means a wax candle. When, therefore a Gorman says li ht he means a caudle or match or other light. But that does not explain the discrepancy of which I shall speak presently. I think you ought to take the prisoner’s own statement and examine its inherent probability and improbability, testing it by tbe evidence confirmatory or against it. What is bis statement ? He says he was suffering from diarrhoea, and had boon all the afternoon, and at 1.30 in the morning he left the house whore he was lodging and went down to the shop to get some quinine, and, in going into the office, approached the lucine tin with a candle and explosion took place. That he was burnt in trying to put out the fire ; that he did not succeed: that he went up the steps at Dowling street, gave an alarm to the watchman at the Bell tower, and was proceeping rapidly home with the object of preventing Mr Howard, then suffering from nervous irritatio ll being alarmed. That statement ought to be examined carefully. The condition in which he was when arrested by the police is slightly in his-favor, but very slightly. A maiTwho has perfect command over his own actions in deciding to commit a crime, would make his arrangements as perfectly as possible, so as to keep himself from harm. If a sudden flame took place it might burn him before he was aware of it. That seems to prove he had not perfect command over bis actions, and that he did not go deliberately to work to scUira to his premises. j,l think the burnt state in which he was is rather in his favor ; but it must not be pressed too much so, for there are counteracting circumstances which you ought to take into consideration. There is an old saying, that fire is a good servant but and bad master : and when a man plays with or uses fire, it may get. the upper-hand of him and burn him in spite of all his precautions. A person accustomed to crime will no doubt act with careful deliberation in such matters ; but there is no presumption that this man is accustomed to crime. On the contrary, the little evidence we have is that he was a fair dealing person. There is nothing against his character, and if he has fallen into or.mo, it is probably his first temptation. A man in that condition is not so likely to preserve bis self command as a perfect master of crime would be. It is quite possible therefore the fire he sought to make, his servant might become his master and burn him. But you arc not bound' by any opinion of man, though I thmk the balance rather favorable to the prisoner’s own hypothesis that the fire was accidental. The’next circumstance is this :—Hu says he went down to the shop for the purpose of getting some quinine or hitters. There would have been no suggestion as to bitters if a bottle containing them had not been found on the premises. Perhaps tbs bitters might be composed of quinine; at anyrate, it was a remedy he had faith in, and it seems other Germans have faith in it too. There is cettainly evidence that lie took the bitters occasionally, and if he had confidence in them you will ask yourselves this question, —why did ho not take them earlier ? After taking the laudanuum he cried out for brandy. Accord.ng to the evidence of Mrs Howard he was alarmed at the effect of the laudanum—that is very reasonable, because a man may possibly have a groat dread of laudanum. Brandy was certainly a reasonable remedy for the disorder from which he had been suffering, but when he sent for the brandy, lie could have also sent for the quinine. .Now Mr Barton would answer, and very properly too, “ If we could put the prisoner into the witness-box and ask him why, in all probability he would say ’’—and it is a reasonable point to go to the jury—- “ I thought of brandy in the first instance and did not send for the bitters; but when the bitters came to my mind everybody was in bed; and as 1 did not wish to disturb anyone in the house, I went and got them myself. ” There is a supposed answer which he might reasonably give ; I may suggest it for him, and it is for you to take it into consideration, whether that part of his'story is a discrepancy or ho]k. The next point is as to his giving the alarm. Supposing that the lire was an accident—.and I would have you recollect that I am still upon the supposition that his statement is not yet impeached by the ■ evidence—that he was burnt in the manner described, tfie first suggestion that will co’me to your minds is—why did he not give the alarm at once ? He was sensible that persons were living above, that people were diving op his right apd left hand. Ip the first instance wfien a ifjrp of this sort occurs, it does not become absolutely unconquerable in a mippte, and the first impulse of a person, one would think—if there were no human considerations of slumberers above, and speaking solely of his own interest—would be to put it out, and then to go to the front part of the house (and if he had no key he might have broken a window) and cried out for aid by shouting “ tire ! tire ! police ! police !” The alarm might have been easily raised in a short time —in fact an effectual alarm could have been given at one. Again ho states that he went out by the front door. Now that door was found locked, so that if he did get out by it he must have locked it after him. There is the theory that he hud a third key, and 1 must again remark I. am not impeaching his statement, the intrinsic merits of which I am referring to—and if he had a third .key he must have disposed of it in soma way before he was taken by the police. While ho was locking the door, therefore, ha could have given such an effectual alarm as must have been heard by .persons round about. He states that he wont up the steps by the fire station. Jt for you to consider whether or nob he raised such ap alarm ps an innocent man, really desirous of raising a hue and cry in order to get a lire extinguished, would raise. The suggestion, and a proper one for counsel to make, has been made that, in his burnt condition, he would, from mere impulse or weakness, perform an act which, in a time of deliberation, he would have known well was capable of being interpreted sorely against him ; and.it is the suggestion which plight he put to the jury as a reason why he xlßd uv-b cty opt. It might suddenly occur iq hrjp'thft, ‘being away from hh p\yp resi. c|.epce pt 1.30 a. in.; his shop burping, and ( hlmaolf partially burnt, that it was a circumstance against him ; and he might be glad to avoid it. At the same thne there are circumstances in his statement which show some deliberation. He had some thought that Mr Howard was lying ill, aud he hurried

;Tr. of his house, in order to why not lose a few seconds to and consider what was his positiorx aucL its perils ? If lie Had time to thixilc of Howard, he would have time to think ;of all that, and also to think of the extreme jeopardy he left those persons in living over him. But these persons have all said “We don’t believe he intended deliberately to burn us to death.” Nor do I; neither do I think any of the jury believe he had any such intention; he would have been glad to save them if he COUld, What you have to consider is this—his conduct when arrested by the police, and his not having given an effectual alarm when leaving the premises, because his one cry of “fire,” even if it did come from him, cannot be said to have been an effectual alarm ; at all events he did not wait to see whether it was or not. . . . 1 think you should take the statement of the prisoner to Thompson, and place it before you as the basis of your enquiry as to its probability or the sufficiency of the hypothesis raised therein, or of its sufficiency to account for the circumstances, which actually occurred. Of course the hypothesis of the Crown is quite to the contrary. I shall not dwell upon.it, as it has been very elaborately explained to you by the learned counsel for the Crown. - I-will now take you to the station and to his statement as to diarrhoea. When taken to the station he was carefully watched-; and one important element in testing the value of this statement, is to ascertain whether at the time he was disturbed in the manner described. The police took every precaution to watch him from the time he came to the watchhouse until he left, and even afterwards. (His Honor here referred to the medical effect of the probable cessation of diarrhoea on sudden fright, and commented upon it at considerable length.) There is no indisputable evidence apart from that furnished by the prisoner of him having the disorder ; and, therefore, being part of his own statement, you can test its truthfulness by other parts of the statement. He says, for instance, that he went out by the front door, which was not possible. Mr Barton found it necessary to abandon- that part of this statement, and suggested that he got out in some other way—by the hack. The effect of the abandonment of this part of the statement, s to show that it was false, while it reflects in a manner upon the whole statement itself, and throws doubt upon the remainder. It is clear that the door was found locked; and I think you will come to the conclusion that the policeman was true in that particular. It was found locked, and was either locked by Ileichelt himself jf he went out by the door, and if he did not, it was never unlocked at all. No key was found on him when arrested, and only two were accounted for afterwards, and these are the only keys about which any satisfactory evidence was given. Noonan states there were two keys; that one was kept in the possession of Ileichelt at his own house; and that he kept the other in his own possession, and that he looked the front door with his own key, about seven o’clock in the evening, taking it with him. The following morning Noonan’s key was delivered to the policeman. The other key was found by Airs Howard in a coat not worn by the prisoner that night; and when sent for it was delivered to the police. There is some little discrepancy as to the time of delivery : but it is of little importance, as it is clear that the key was handed to the police. There is the suggestion of Miss Cane that she bad heard something of a third key, which is not consistent with the evidence of Noonan. The explanation of the keys shows prisoner could not have got out by the front door. . . . The nextdiscrepancy in the statementis furnished by the evidence of the policeman. Having already told you that no importance could be attached;to the word candle-prisoner states, first that he approached a lucine tiu with a candle, afterwards he approached it with a lamp, and the lamp itself exploded. Therefore there are two ]diffierent statements as to the manner in which the fire occurred, without deducting the word candle. The other statement is that with a lighted match he. approached too near a lucihe tin which exploded. Where a man is relating a set of acts as they actually occurred, those facts being of a nature likely to impress themselves upon his memory, he would tell them as they occurred, 'and in chronqligical order. Are the <facts'' here stated cqrreqtly ? Are they stated in the order iu which they occurred ? If the (ire happened in the manner stated, by the explosion of a lamp, and produced these dire effects, that must have impressed itself so clearly upon the prisoner’s nfind that he was not likely to alter or vary it afterwards. On the other'hand,' if ignition occurred by approaching the lucine tin with a match or with ' lamp, it would be a fact which ’ho wquld nqt be ‘ likely to fqrget. The manner m which the fact's are related is a circumstance for the jury to consider in determining whether it is a made

up story or not. Then as to the statements of the police. There is no reason to believe, as far as I can see, that these statements are untrue. They were very properly and judiciously taken by the police, and Mr Barton does not charge the police with over officious zeal in the matter. It is for you to consider what weight is , to be given to their statements ; to me it seems that their statements are entitled to credit, even if they had not been given by policemen. It is always for you to judge; you had the advantage of seeing their demeanor in the witness-box, and that is an advantage of onr system of oral examination. They were subjected to a severe cross-examination, in which skill Mr Barton is not deficient. . . . (After referring to the evidence as to the cries of “ fire ” raised on the morning in question, and commenting on the evidence of Hannigan, which, he said, did not support the supposition that it was the prisoner he saw ascending the Rattray street steps, his Honor commented on the evidence as to the explosive qualities of lucerne and concluded as,follows :—This case is one of some difficulty. It has been put to you by Mr Stout, who appears here for the first time, very clearly, and I am bound to say very fairly ; and as strong a case has been made out for the Crown as the ingenuity of counsel could make out. It is for you to take the whole of the circumstances of the case into consideration ; weigh the prisoner’s statements well, examine how far they contradict one another in some particulars ; consider w.iat motive he had, and how it. was .likely 'tq. operate op his mind ; whether |t , ' \yas a' sufficiently f patent, : native • $0 induce him to liaye , ap interest f f the true circumstances of the' case. You are to consider the circumstances conscientiously and fearlessly, with this single condition, if in the end you have any reasonable

doubt in your minds the prisoner is entitled to that doubt. The jury then retired.