SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1608, 16 April 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING-. Wednesday, Apeil 16. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston] The sitting of the Court re-opened at 10 a.m. WILFULLY SETTING FISE TO PREMISES. Isidor Schwartz was indicted for having, on the 17th March, last, set fire to certain articles in the premises occupied by him, with intent to defraud certain insurance companies. On another count the prisoner was indicted, under the 7th section of the Malicious In. juries to Property Act, with having com* rnitted certain overt acts, which, had the building caught fire, would have been a felony, Mr Garrick appeared to prosecute. Mr Joynt appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr A. I, Hulme was chosen foremen of the jury. Mr Garrick briefly opened the case to the jury. Mr Joynt said he should contend that the indictment was bad. The first count charged prisoner with setting fire to goods only, and there was no such offence in the Act. Again, ho should, at the proper time, object to counts 3,j[4 and 5, on the ground of ambiguity, as there were no particulars of the offence [case cited, Regina v. Child], His Honor inquired how Mr Garrick proposed to deal with this matter. At a cursory glance it seemed as if the first count of the indictment was bad. Mr Garrick said he had not drawn the indictment, but should be prepared at a later stage to argue the point. He might say that he should, if necessary, rely upon the second count, which was laid under the 7th section of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act. His Honor said that, supposing the first count to bo laid, how did Mr Garrick propose to get rid of it ? Mr Garrick thought'that a nolle prosequi might be entered. His Honor said that this could only bo done by the Attorney-General. However, attention had been called to the matter, and no doubt counsel would argue the point at a later stage. Mr Garrick then proceeded to call witnesses. The first of these was Mr T. S. Lambert, architect and surveyor, who bad made the plans of the premises. On this witness being sworn, Mr Joynt moved that the jury visit the locus in quo and view the premises. He felt this, that the jury could not from the plans and evidence comprehend the case unless they had seen the premises. His Honor thought it would be better to wait until Mr Lambert’s evidence was taken and then, I if, necessary, to call the attention of the jury to the points brought out in evidence. It might be that the interests of justice would be seriously prejudiced by (he admission, in the absence of the judge from such view, of evidence which legally was not receivable. Mr Joynt said (hat what he proposed was (hat his learned friend and himself with Mr Lambert should accompany the jury. After some further argument, His Honor said that, perhaps at a later stage, the application of Mr Joynt might bo of the highest possible importance to enable the jury to comprehend the case,

Mr Lambert then proceeded to give evidence as to the plana of the premises made by him similar to that given before the Resident Magistrate. Mr Joynt then proceeded to cross-examine, and requested his Honor to allow the witness to proceed to the premises for the purpose of seeing if they were in the same condition now as when he made the measurements.

His Honor declined at that stage to do so. Witness, cross-examined by Mr Joynt—’ Cannot say whether I saw indications of fire under the counter before it wai pointed out to me by Mr Superintendent Harris. I know he pointed out No. 3 fire. Fire No. 3 was debris of paper wrapperj, of packages, &e. It was lying midway between the counter and the glass screen inside the window* The debris seemed to be in a heap, and covered about a foot or so. It was all confined, I believe, to this spot. There was a heap of naper and burned matter in the centre of it. There would be a distance of 6in between the flame and the window. The screen was boarded up for 2ft 9in, above that was glass, forming a sliding screen. I was told that the door was in the position I have shown on the plan. Superintendent Harris told me to put it in that position. It was not in that position when I saw it. I did not see any brown paper behind the door. The brown color on the plan indicates scorching, I have shewn the scorching up to the door, that was as near as I could get at it. It was loose matter, and I was not able to delineate it as accurately as the shelving. There was a chair I believe near the door, but I do not know that there was a box on it. I did not see any boxes under the counter. The counter was of timber varnished, and the screen timber was either varnished or painted. There were two burnt chairs in the end of the counter towards fire No 2, one eight and tne other five inches from the floor. The chairs one from liin to IJin. They are distant from centre of fire No 2 about Ift Din. There was no appearance of fire on the end of the counter, except that referred to by me, nor was there any on the screen. The lower part of the back of the door was not touched by fire. There was a show case on the counter which projected over the counter at the end near the window about lOin. at the back. Just over fire No. 2 the moulding of the counter projects. The show case is the same width as the counter, 2ft. 3in., and the bottom of the show case is 3ft. lin. from the floor, I take the centre of the charred parts to be where the flame was. I did not examine the floor under fire No. 2, The charred matter was not burned through to the floor, I noticed the underneath part of the leaf of the counter above fire No. 1 was charred. The top of the show case was burnt. The charring on the under side of the counter went to about 2ft, fiin. of the end. The burned part was in the middle of the counter. The counter was charred to the extent of about sft., and scorched to within some distance of the end, and then died away. The top part of the end of the counter was not scorched, so far as I recollect. Flames seemed to have been sweeping over the counter, as the top of it is charred for some distance. I saw nothing indicating direct communication or indirect communication between fire No. 1 and fire No. 2. The fire went up to the height of 6ft. behind the counter, and scorched up to the ceiling. The edges of the shelves np to the glass screen were blistered. The scorching and blistering appeared most heavy high up. The front part of the ceiling was blackened, and the outside alse. I don’t remember whether the lower half of the door showed signs of fire. I know the upper part did. The upper part of the woodwork of the window furthest from the counter was scorched and blackened, and the glass in the window was cracked in irregular fractures. The whole of the upper portion of the shop was blistered and scorched a good deal. The shelves all round the shop showed similar marks. The action of the fire seemed to be greater high up than low down, and also greater at the back of the shop. I saw the package marked as fire No. 3 myself. It was loose, and there was some brushware inside of it. The shelves were filled with packages, but the pigeon hole in which this was had been opened. The packages in the other pigeon holes had been scorched. There were some cases with hay in them on the shelves which showed signs of fire. I had not seen fire in No. 3 before Mr Hains called my attention to it.

Re-examined by Mr Garrick —I cannot say whether the flat case was the same width as the counter. There were no indications of hot fire having gone in the direction of No. 2.

At this stage tho Court adjourned until 2 p.m. On resuming at two o’clock, Constable Daley deposed to the discovery of the fire by him whilst on duty on the night of the 17th inst.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—A man named Juris kicked the shutters in, and I helped him to take them down. There was nothing then between us and the inside of the shop. I put the shutter up temporarily, and left two men holding the shutter. Juris was one of these men, and Foster the other, neither Jarvis nor Foster engaged in throwing water on the fire. As close as I can calculate it was about fifteen minutes after I discovered the fire when the brigade arr ived. Mr Superintendent Harris came in then. I saw the fire distinctly. The one behind the counter flamed up the wall. The other fire at the end was to the back of the count er. The fire at the epd of the counter seemed midway between the counter and the window. The two leaves of the door were open straight. There were some tobacco boxes picked up in front of the door. The fire which was above the oeunter was up to a height of three or four feet.

Re-examined by Mr Garrick —I did not notice Juris or Foster when I returned from the White Hart with water. George Foster gave evidence similar to that given by him at the Magistrate’s Court. Cross-examined by Mr Jovnt I saw two distinct fires and a curl of smoke. I take it that smoke means fire. The fire near the window was a small flame, it was about a couple of feet about the floor. I did not see the special fire put out by the buckets of water,Jl did not see water thrown on this special fire. The curl of smoko was about 10ft. or 12ft. from the door. [Left sitting.]