SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1681, 10 July 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Wednesday, July 9. [Before His Honor Judge Johnston.] Tho following evidence taken yesteeday, in tho case of Frank Lewis, charged with arson, was heard after we went to press : Messrs Macpherson and Turner wore called to prove the insurances on the building in their respective offices, namely, tho South British and the New Zealand. It appeared that the South British insurance had expired before the fire took place. In the New Zealand the insurances effected by the accused were—£2oo on the stock, £SO on tho furniture, and a second insurance of £BO on the stock and £2O on the piano. The accused had claimed all the insurances save that on the piano. The money was not paid. Thomas McCleary, machinist in the Prbbs office, was next examined. He was one of the first at the fire, and saw the fire first under the staircase.

By Mr Joynt —When I first saw the fire through the window at the entrance to the oyster shop, it was a blood light. I did not see the light inside _till I went through the curtain door. It was a small blaze when I first saw it, and I could see some paper burning. I was at Lewis’s shop about five minutes before the fire bell rang. Door O might have been open when I got to it. I have no recollection of how I opened it. I had been enjoying myself that night. I felt it in my bead next morning. I can recollect perfectly well what I saw at the fire.

By His Honor—l had hoard there were rewards out for fires.

By Mr Joynt—Lewis asked me and Constable Johnson to have oysters that night._ It was about an hour before the fire. I believe I said I would sooner go to Beattie’s and have some beer. The constable was in plain clothes. We were not together long. I remember having a talk with Stafford and his ■wife and Mr Jackson on the let of June. I did not say Lewis would get committed for trial. I believe Stafford said, “ I don’t think he will on your evidence.” I did not say, “Oh yes he will, for I saw the b do it.” Stafford may have said, “ You don’t mean to tell that lie for the sake of tho reward.” I never said, “I would crush my own father for such a reward.” Stafford never threatened howouldgoand tell Mr Joynt what I said. There was a good deal of smoko in the shop when I first entered it. There was enough smoke to make your eyes water. Mr Joynt—You said in your examination at the B. M. Court you did not see any flames when first you went in on account of the smoke. Tie that true or not ? Witness —I believe it is. His Honor—Was the door marked D leading from the front premises to the back open or shut when you entered ? Witness —It was shut, I cannot say whether I opened it or not. His Honor —Could you have seen the fire you have described without opening it ? Witness—-No sir, I could not.

James Johnston, a constable stationed in Christchurch, said that he saw the firo in Lewis’ shop on the morning of tho 23th June, at twenty minutes past one at the outside.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Some of tho cases that were placed on the footpath might have been stolen. I believe there was a constable guarding tho goods on the footpath, the constable could not see that anyone who took things from the shop took them over to tho Bank of Hew Zealand, as there were so many people passing along. When I had guard on the saloon in which the goods were placed, I was at tho shop from nine to five o’clock, and kept the key in my pocket. I I never left view of the corner. [The witness enumerated the things ho saw in the shop.] Mr MoOleary had been drinking on tho night of the fire. I could not see anything burning under tho stairs, as the place was in a blaze. McCleary went in before mo. He was not long before me, Robert William D’Oyloy was called to prove tho ownership of the property in question.

His Honor said that had been proved already by Mr Morten, and no further evidence was required. John Hayes and David Smart, police constables, were called to prove that the goods taken from the shop had been guarded since the fire.

Robert Ohudley deposed that he was a fruiterer. He had valued the stock remaining on the premises occupied by Lewis after the fire. Some of the goods were saved intact, but [the greater part was injured, and some ■was totally destroyed. The approximate valuation of the stock before the fire, as far as ho could trace it, was £116; the remainder he valued at £ls, leaving a total loss of £7l. He did not assume that there was any stock so totally destroyed as to leave no traces, because tho circumstances were such as to lead one to expect that a residue would remain.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l will not swear that there was no stock but that of which traces remained. I looked for traces, and could find none.

To his Honor—lf the fire was sufficiently fierce it would consume such articles as sweets without leaving traces behind. Mr Turner, re-called, said the whole_ claim of insurance was £330 15s. The claim on furniture was £75.

Walter Drake, clerk in Dallas’s, auctioneer’s office, stated—l was in Lewis’s shop a fortnight or three weeks before the fire. I noticed the stock and furniture. I went to see Lewis and look at tbo stock before advertising an auction. I inspected the goods up-staira. There was a book-case, oilcloth on the floor, and three or four dozen chairs. The room was the whole length of the bouse. There were half a dozen tables and appliances necessary for a luncheon-room. Downstairs there wore a number of chairs, china and glassware, fruit, and confectionary. I calculated that the goods would fetch about £l2O at public auction. To replace them in the same condition would cost nearly double the money. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l did not go to value the goods in detail. Ido not believe that the goods, furniture, and effects generally could be purchased new under £3OO. It would depend a good deal on the way in which the things were purchased. Alfred Thomas Kowbottom deposed that he was a tobacconist. His shop was next to Lewis’s shop, Colombo street. Had frequently conversations with Lewis with reference to fire, the tenor of his remark] generally being that if there was a fire on his premises it could not interfere with witness, as there was a brick wall between their houses. Such remarks generally occum d after a fire. Did not'think anything of it at the time. But- when he told him he had insured for an additional £IOO my attention was excited.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l did express to Xiewis my dread of fires. I do consider that block of buildings dangerous. X pay at the rate of £2 in the hundred. Inspector Hickson deposed that he was at the fire on the morning of the 25th of May last, and had then a conversation with the accused. The evidence he gave has already been published. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l was called at twenty minutes to two o’clock. 1 believe Z did mention before the Magistrate that accused said something about the hard times, and having to keep up two places of business. I was told of a man who knew something about the fire, and I directed Detective Benjamin to take him to the office to get his statement. 1 do not know the man. He was a sailor, and a foreigner. Benjamin told me that the man could not speak English well, and his evidence was of very little use. Constable Johnson had been there before him.

Mr Morten, owner of tha shop, said he was often in and out there. Last time ho was there was on Thursday before the fire. Accused wanted him -to- buy fittings and some oilcloth. Witness did not want them. Witness noticed that there was not nearly so much stock in the shop as there had been. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l noticed the stock very closely. I had good reason for doing so. Accused complained that he was doing a had business latterly. Witness said he did not wonder at it, since he appeared to have removed the greater part of his stock to the other shop. Mr Joynt thought it very strange that none of this came out at the Resident Magistrate’s Court. * Witness —I suppose it is because I was not questioned. I should not have said it now if you had not asked me questions. Mr Joynt indignantly denied that his examination had led up to the answers given, and suggested that the witness was very anxious to make the statement. Mr Morten —I am not at all anxious. His Honor —It is certainly entirely new matter. Thomas Searall, architect, was called to prove the plan of the premises. Detective Benjamin proved the arrest of the prisoner. When ho went up to accused and said he came to arrest him on a charge of arson, accused said “ Yes, yes,” very quietly. By Mr Joynt—l took a drunken sailor to the depot, but he was too drunk to make any intelligible statement. Mr Joynt wag putting a question as to what he said to the man in question, when His Honor said the question was not admissible unless it was intended to call the man as a witness.

Mr Joynt said he had put such questions before with his Honor’s sanction.

A discussion ensued, terminating in his Honor declining to let the question as to what the man said be put for the purpose of establishing tho fact, but subsequently his Honor allowed the question to bo put to ascertain tho reliability of Benjamin’s evidence. Detective Benjamin then stated that he heard the man say he had found the door of the shop open and saw the fire. But ho was too drunk to be at all intelligible, and it was a rule in the force not to pay heed to what fell from drunken men in tho station.

Mr Joynt—Did the man say anything to you about Australia. Witness—l do not remember that he did. Mr Duncan intimated that the case for the prosecution had now closed. Mr Joynt expressed a desire to be allowed to commence,the defence on the following day instead of proceeding now, on the ground that commencing at so late an hour ho could not do justice to his client. His Honor said it was really a matter or the jury. Mr Joynt also stated that he was suffering from bronchitis. Ultimately it was resolved to postpone tho defence till the day following. This Day. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ten o’clock. ARSON. The case of Frank Lewis, charged with this offence, was taken up at the point reached on the evening previous, namely, at the conclusion of tha case for tha Crown. The jury having been ro-impaunelled, Mr Joynt proceeded to open his caee for the defence. Some dijenssion took place between his Honor aud Mr Joynt as to the admisaahility of certain comments which Mr Joynt made upon the evidence. Mr Joynt then said he intended to produce a witness, a woman, who would depose to tho fact that she was waiting for her husband near the back of the shop, and saw the back door open and a light. Then she saw a person come rushing out, and she afterwards alarmed her husband. 'J his was before tho fire hell rang. The husband was not able to bo produce!, but the woman would depose to what he had stated. This was the defence he intended to produce, and the evidence would show that Mr Cork’s evidence was not such as the j ary could place reliance upon. He was unable to prodace evidence ns to value of tho stock, because the prisoner doing only a retail trade he was not in the habit of taking stock frequently. Tha following evidence was called for the defence:—

Joseph Landery—l am assistant in the Crown brewery. I knew John W. Cork on the 3rd Juno. I mot him about mid day in High street on that date, and had some conversation with, him about the fire. He mentioned about the reward. He said Mr Joynt had mentioned in the R M. Court as to the reward which was offered for cases like Lewis. Ho said “It is not the reward I am after, which if I were to get it I would as soon give part of it to the unemployed as keep it all.” He said Detective Benjamin had mentioned to him on the same morning that the fire occurred, about the reward which was offered for such cases as Lewis. Ho (Benjamin) said that ho ought to secure it, and Cork said if he or Detective Benjamin got it they were going to part it between them. I said to Cork that I had heard that n short timo before the fire he wanted to buy the business. He said ho had some of idea of it, but that Lewis would not come to his terms. Cork said it would have been better for Lewis had ho let him have it which he should make it a great deal worse for him on that account. I asked Cork about the reflection he said ho had seen. He said at the time he had first seen it he didnot know whether it was from the lamps j ast yonder or even from a fire. The lamps in the square would shine clearly into the shop in the evening. They would cast a square reflection on the wall at the back. I hero noticed that this has been the case on an evening. Mr Duncan did not cross-examine this witness.

John Gnstavo Carlsen—l know Cork, who has been working with mo. I mot him one Saturday evening about n fortnight after the fire. I had a conversation with him on the fire. I asked him whst ho thought of Lewis’ case, and ho said ho thought he would get off, but not if be could help it. I said he was a witness in tho case. He said, “Yes, I am. People are blaming me for going in for the reward. I may as well do it as he blamed for it.” I cautioned him to be careful what he was about, and called his attention to tho severe punishment for such a crime as arson. He said it was all right; he would just as scon do it as bo

blamed for it. Cork told mo on another occasion that ho did not see any fire or know anything about the fire before he left the place, understood Cork to mean that he would give evidence whether ho knew anything about it or not. Mr Dnr can did not cross-examine.

„ Walter Stafford—l rssida near the “ Press ” office, Christchurch. I know Thomas M'Cleary. I remember Sunday, June Ist. I met M'Cleary at my shop door, and had some conversation with me. He came up to mo, and said, “ Hallo, Stafford, what about Lewis now?” I said “I don’t know.” He said, “Oh, he will get committed for trial.” I said, “Idon’tthipk ho will on your evidence.” McCleary said, “Oh yes ho will, I saw him do it.” On a former occasion he had told me what he had actually seen, and I sax'*, “ How can you tell such a lie. I will go and tell Mr Joynt. You don’t mean to say you are going to say such a thing for the sake of the reward.” He said, “ Oh, I shall have it. Why I’d crush my own father for that amount.” Mr Duncan did not cross-examine.

Frederick Rutland—l measured the aperture at door Din the plan. It is -Ift. lliin. The street lamps shine into Lewis’s shop at night. I was at the fire at Lewis’s shrp. I saw 1 ewrs. Inspector Hickson, and Detective Benjamin. I saw a man go up to Inspector Hickson before Lewis w-'S arrested. Mr Joynt—l purpose to ask this witness whether the man made a statement. Mr Duncan—l object. His Honor—Mr Joynt you cannot ask the question. Mr Joynt—Very well, your Honor. Witness—The man went to the depot with Inspec'or Hickson and Detective Benjamin. Ho was sober.

Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—l should say that, having heard a man speak and seen him walk for five minutes, I was able to say he was sober. Ho was English. I understood his name to bo Mitchell, and that he lived in Armagh street. He was speaking to several people round about. Francis Fahey—On the 25th of May I was night watchman at the Bank of New Zealand. My beat was round the extent of the Bank on the footpath. When I heard the first alarm of fire I was in the garden on the north-west side of the Bank. I believe it was a cabman who sang out “ Fire.” A moment or two afterwards Constable Johnston and McCleary came along. The first voice—that of a man who drove a cab — said, “Are you there watchman?” This was about eighteen minutes past one by my watch. This was eight or nine minutes before the firo bell rang. I wont over to the fire ; Constable Johnston was there before mo and was kicking the door. McCleary was not there at that time. He came a minute or so afterwards. I saw the goods removed from Lewis’ shop. There were a good many people rem wing goods. They were placed on the footpath on the side of the Bank of New Zealand. A number of tins and glass oases were taken away, and some of the latter were smashed on the footpath by the people. A lot of frnit was also taken. The police were there very soon. Cross-examined by Mr Duncan—The taking away of tins, &c„ was before the gcods were put into Mr Donaldson’s place. I was looking after the Bank of New Zealand, and could not help seeing the peop'e taking things. They took them in all directions. Maria Mitchley—l am the wife of Ambrose Mitchley, blacksmith. .He is aNorfolk man. I was with my husband early on the morning of the 25th May. A yonng man, a sailor, was with us. My husband was sober, but the young man was intoxicated He was a Norwegian. I parted with my husband at the Golden Age comer for a moment, and went into the back yard. My husband waited for me in Hereford street. There is a right of way from Hereford street by the Golden Age, which opens on to Lewis’ yard. When I was there I saw the back door of Mr Lewis’ house open, and I saw fire inside. The fire bell had not then lung. The fire seemed to be inside the back door. It was not blazing up high. I saw a door in the small fence round Mr Lewis’s back door open, and a man came rushing out. He passed me in the yard, and ran into the street. I could not see the man after he passed mo. He ran up the right of way into Hereford' street. This was neither my husband or the man who was with him. The man opened the small door and came through it. I ran to my husband, who was at the comer waiting for mo I told my husband that I had seen fire in the shop. He ran round the front of the shop, and the sailor went with him. I went over by the bank, and did not see my husband until after the fire was over. My husband is now in the North Island. Ho went to the depot. Cross examined by Mr Duncan—The fence was higher than me. I was about fifteen feet from the fence. The door through which the man came was shut when I first went there. The door is at the left hand side of the fence. I saw through the paitings in the fence. I could not say what the man was r ko. I told my husband about the man when he came home, about three in the morning. When my husband was at the depot he did not know about the man I could not describe the man. He had dark clothes, and he had, 1 believe, a dark bat on. He went past me so quick that I could not see any thing of him. The doorway out of which the man came is opposite Mr Lewis’ back door. I never gave any information to the police about the matter. My husband spoke to the police about the matter, but they would not listen to him. I heard the firebell almost two or three minutes after I saw the fire.

By his Honor —I was out with my husband to see if we could get something to drink for Sunday. The sailor slept at onr house tho morning of the fire. By Mr Duncan—The sailor was a short, fair man with a moustache. He wore light trousers and vest and a dark coat. His name was Jackson. He left Canterbury with my husband. Both my husband and the tailor told me they bad been at the depot. Re-examined by Mr Joynt—Both my husband and Jackson came home together about halfpast three on the moming of the fire. Albert Cuff—l am a commission agent in Christchurch, and have transacted the import business of Lewis for soma time. He was an importer of fruit, confectionery, &c. The total value of the imports of Lewis for six months prior to the fire would be about £6OO or £7OO. I see from the figures before me that the exact amount of value imported for six months was £ 1123. I get this from my hooka. The amount includes charges. This includes vouchers I have seen or goods which have come through our hands. This only includes a very small portion of Can-terbury-grown fruit purchased by Lewis. Ho was always prompt in his payments. During tho month of June, prior to the lire, the goods came pretty regular. There was a slight falling off for the two months prior to the fire, hut nothing noticeable. He had a second retail establishment. The one in Cathedral square was the largest. I cannot say whether there was a shipment of fruit and confectionery in bond not to hand before the fire. I see from documents that the shipments arrived on the 22nd and 24th. The first might have got to hand before the fire, but the latter would hardly do so. In the ordinary course the 22nd shipment might reach the day of the fire.

Thomas Bates—l am a cabinetmaker in Christchurch. I supplied Lewis with furniture, and knew what wag there a week before the firo. Lewis Lad about £SO worth of furniture for the shop. I should value the furniture in the shop at about £7O or £BO. The furniture was not old. I should value the chairs at from 7s to 9s each.

Alexander Dallas gave evidence ns to the value of the stock remaining on the premises occupied by lewis after the firo, as ascertained by Mr D. H. Christie and himself. To replace the stock, of which we saw remains, would take £132 16s Bd, This closed the case for tho defence.

Mr Duncan called the followicg rebutting evidence:—

Mr Inspector Hickson I removed the drunken sailor already spoken of from the Detective office. This was a young,[fair man. He was unable to speak distinctly. The sailor was sleeping in a chair in the Detective office. Mn Mitcho’ey’s husband was not there. He left the office with me in order to get a lodging, and handed him over to to Constable Trovalyan, who was on duty in High street. I am not aware of any other man except Cork being examined at the depot.. Charles Trevalyan—l am a constable in Christchurch. On the morning after the fire I received a man from Inspector Hickson to get a lodging, and I took him to Fowler’s lodginghouse, at the corner of Madras street and Town holt. The man was half drunk, but knew what he was saying. He had a dark tweed suit on, with black felt hat. There was no one with him. Detective Benjamin—l know Dodge’s board ing- house. The man I took to the depot is the man whom I afterwards saw with Constable Trevalyan. By Mr Joynt—l know nothing about a man named Mitchely going down to the depot and offe iig to make a;stafe-ncnt about the fire. He might have followed us down, but he made no offer of a statement. Mr Joynt then proceeded to address the jury for the defence.

[Left sitting.]