MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1649, 3 June 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Jdne 2. The following is a continuation of yesterday’s proceedings in the arson case ; Lucy Holloway, who was in the employ ot the accused at the time of the fire, corroborated the evidence of Mary Muir, and stated that sho saw the accused turn off the gas at the meter shortly before leaving the shop, im the supper-room upstairs there were nearly a hundred chairs and five or six tables. In reply to the Bench, the witness stated she was in the habit of sweeping the shop out. aud depositing the paper in the yard. James Macpherson, manager of the South British Insurance Company, swore' that the accused insured his stock and furniture for £3OO in their office. The policy would have run to the 27th March. He had applied for a renewal, but the witness declined the risk, haring heard that he had insured his stock for £2OO in the Now Zealand lusurar.cn Office. Daniel Colville Turner, clerk in th* Now Zealand Insurance Company’s office stated that the accused had insured hie Block

. W—rill I—— in that office for £l5O and his furniture for £SO. There was a further insurance on the 23rd April, 1879, of £BO on the stock and £2O on the piano in the building. James Johnson, police constable, deposed that between the night and morning of the 24th and 25tb of May last he was on duty in plain clothes in Colombo street. He was near Gee’s corner when ho first saw the fire. A man named Thomas McCleiry was with him. He locked towards Lewis’ shop and saw a flame of fire above the western door. He hastened there with McOleary and tried to knock in the door leading into the shop. Ho broke a window and McOleary got in, and then opened the door. The inner portion of the premises near the staircase was all in a flams. Witness ran to the City Hotel and fetched a bucket of water, which some one took from him and threw on the fire. Witness went for Lewis, whom ho met with his coat off, and told him his place was on fire. The only person near the fire at the time it broke out was the nigh t watchman at the Bank of New Zealand. Thomas McOleary deposed that on the morning of the 25th of May last he was with the last witness opposite Gee’s, the confectioner’s. Ho saw the fire breaking out from Lewis’ shop. They both ran up, and wore there about five minutes before the bell rang. They tried to burst open the door, and eventually got in and saw fire under the stairs. Robert Chudley deposed that on the 26fch of last May he was called on to value the stock in the shop of the accused. He estimated the value at £ll6 6«. A man named Dunaford was with him. Ho valued the fruit, confectionary, and partly destroyed furniture. The witness was cross-examined by Mr Joynt as to the magnitude of his trade transactions in confectionary, but answered in so evasive a manner as to draw upon himself the rebuke of the Bench. His Worship regretted that he should have to order the witness to be detained in custody, as it was apparent he was in a state of intoxication, and his evidence, on which a man’s liberty might depend, would have to be deferred until the next day. The witness was then removed in the custody of the police, and another one called. Walter Drake, clerk in the employ of Mr A, Dallas, auctioneer, deposed that, acting on instructions, he lately went to the premises occupied by Mr Lewis. It was about the 12fch or 13th May, before the fire took place. He went to inspect the stock for the purpose of putting an advertisement in the papers respecting a sale by auction. Roughly estimated, the value appeared to be about £l2O. That was what they would likely fetch under the hammer. Alfred Thos. Robottoxn, tobacconist, deposed that the rear of his shop adjoined that of the accused. Accused frequently visited his shop. Remember the fire which took place at his shop. Accused and he had frequently conversed on the subject of fires. The former bad always remarked that in case of fire, he (the witness) was perfectly safe, as there was a brick wall between them. Three or four weeks before the fire witness had a conversation with Detective Benjamin, and just before that the accused said he had insured for another £IOO, which made £3OO, as he was very much alarmed about fire. His (witness’s) premises were not in any way injured by the fire. Mr Inspector Hickson deposed that on the morning of the 25th May last he was called, and went to the premises of the prisoner, whom ho saw. It was about half-past two a.m. He was speaking to Detective Benjamin, to whom Cork was relating what he knew, and the prisoner came up and listened. Witness called the prisoner, so that he might not hear what Cork was saying to Detective Benjamin, Witness said to him “ What time did you leave your premises ? ” He said, “ I don’t know, some time after twelve o’clock,” or words to that effect. Witness asked him how he secured his premises before leaving. He said the girls locked one door, he fastened up another, and put a tub against the other. Witness expressed surprise to the prisoner that he had not gone to the expense of a lock to prevent his being robbed again, and he replied ho could not afford to be laying out money on the place, or be repairing it every day. He said he should be leaving the place in a few days, having given notice a month before. Witness asked him if he was insured, and prisoner said yes, in the New Zealand for £3OO. He had been insured for £SOO, but the premium was too high, and he /‘reduced it.” He said he should be a great loser by the fire, but it might have been worse. He also said, “It is well I have not moved in goods that I have elsewhere.” Walter Drake, re-called said—From recollection he should say there were three or four dozen chairs and half-a-dozen tables. Thomas Searell, surveyor, in the employ of Mr Strouts, architect, said ho made the plan of the premises produced. At this stage Mr Duncan asked for a remand, which was granted until ten o’clock this morning. 'Tub boat, Jukb 3. [Before G. L, Mellish, Esq., and G. L, Lee, Esq., J.P.J Dbunk and Disorderly. —Two drunkards were fined 5s and 10s respectively. Labceny. —Anne Barry was charged with stealing £l, the property 'of Charlotte Rhodes. Prosecutrix ana the prisoner were domestic servants out of employment, living with a Mrs Lemon in Salisbury street. The money was taken from the prosecutrix’ bedroom, which she shared with the prisoner. Mrs Lemon proved that she saw a £1 note lying on the bed on the morning in question. She took it up and put it on to the cable, and left it there. Subsequently prosecutrix charged the prisoner with stealing it. John Carpenter, landlord of the Albion Hotel, deposed that the prisoner purchased two shillings’ worth of spirits in his house that morning, and tendered £1 in payment. He gave her the change, and wrote hia name on the note, which ho afterwards gave up to the police. The note in Court is the same one. As it was a first offence, the Bench dealt leniently with the prisoner, and sentenced her to fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labor.

Abbon.—Frank Lewis was again brought up on the charge of arson. As on the previous day Mr T. S. Duncan prosecuted, and Mr T. I. Joynt appeared for the accused. The first witness called was Robert Chudley, who deposed that on the 26th of lost May he valued some stock and fixtures on the prisoner’s premises. The value he estimated at £ll6 6s. The valuation was made on the Monday after the fire. Crossexamined by Mr Joynt—Both f urniture and stock were all more or less damaged, but very little of the latter had been absolutely destroyed. Had been employed by the agent of the New Zealand Insurance Company to make the valuation. Each of the showcases and contents were worth ss. Had not had much experience in valuing confectionary, Constable Wm. Law lor deposed that on the Monday after the fire he to»-k charge of the premises and contents from Constable Johnson, but afterwards gave his charge over to Constable Smart, Some goods were removed from Donaldson’s place next door back into Lewis’ premises. Constable David Smart also deposed to the time the premises were under his charge. Detective Benjamin deposed that on 25th May ho was at Lewis’ fire about twenty minutes to two a.xn. He arrested the prisoner about twenty minutes previously on the charge of sotting fire to his shop. The next morning he examined a cellar below the shop, but found nothing in it. The witness described the position and condition of the several doors delineated on the plan produced in Court. These were all the witnesses for the prosecution, and after a few remarks from Mr Joynt, who submitted there was no evidence sufficiently strong to ensure a conviction, the Bench decided to send the case for trial. The depositions were then read over, and the prisoner was committed for trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court#

LYTTELTON. Monday, June 2. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.] RtifUBED TO Wobk. —Peter Warren was charged with refusing to work on board the barque Orient when ordered to do so by his superior officer. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared to prosecute, and Mr Joyce for the accused. Captain Anton, master of tho vessel, said the accused was an A.B. and belonged to the crew of the Orient. That he was suffering from a akin disease and had eruptions in several parts of his body. The disease was probably contracted up about Queensland. The accused had been up at Court charged with refusing to work, and the Bench had ordered him back to the vessel. Upon his return the chief officer had set him to work at similar work to that for refusing to do which he was before arrested, namely, side stitching a sail. Tho work is considered very light indeed. Tho defence was that the accused was unable to repair the sail as ordered, in consequence of having to drag the sail across his knees thereby causing them to bleed. A certificate wao put in evidence from Dr. Rouse, to the •ffect that accused was able to do light work. A convictioa >raa and the Bench

ordered the man back to the ship, cautioning him net to disobey the commands of the officers. Civil—Rouse v Crafer, £5 12s 6d. Mr Nalder far the plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay 15s per week, in default two months imprisonment, also to pay Court costs and lawyer’s fee, 21s. Singleton v Riley, claim £l9 15a, balance of account for wages. Mr Joyce for defendant. Judgment for defendant.