SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1931, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

SITTINC AT HOKITIKA. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27. Before liis Honour, AU : Justice Kennedy.) AFTERNOON SITTING. THE KING V. WILLI AAJ GEORGE MUIR. (Continued ) Tho Court which adjourned at 1 p.m. resumed at 2.15 p.m. „\lj, Ur Hors intimated lie was not calling evidence for the defence. Mr Park addressed the jury. They had to consider the evidence that had been placed before them. The accused bad made a general denial of the evidence brought before them, which counsel referred to., ’He felt sure they would agree that tin l man who got over Sharpe’s fence was the man who was seen .and spoken to by Huberts, when getting, over the fence in Sale srect, while the boys were positive that it was tin* accused who went into Sharpe’s premises. What the jury had to decide was did the accused set the house afire, or not. Mr Sellers for the defence said the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. Tin* only direct evidence was that of the hoys who said that they saw Muir going into Sharpe’s gate. There was no direct evidence whatever. The elderly peole could not identify the man seen, owing to the darkness. He claimed that the evidence of the Crown fell short of proving the guilt of the accused. There was nothing to connect the accused with the fire. He held the Crown had not established the connection of the accused with the crime.

His Honour addressed the jury. 1 lie accused was charged with arson. Arson was the setting fire wilfully to a building affixed to the soil. There must be a reasonable doubt before they could acquit tin' prsoner. Ihe ease tor the Crown was that accused intentionally set fire to Sharpe’s building. The defence was that the accused was not at Snarpe’s p’ace or the immediate vicinity at the time. The evidence of the liovs, plus the evidence of the observers, plus the evidence of Roberts was such as would lead them to accept tho evidence of identification of the identity of tlie accused. If tho jury round that accused was on Sharpe’s section, was that enough to show he was implicated in the fire in Sharpe’s. .11 accused was on the section a short time before the lire broke out, why did he

get over the fence at the hack ; why was lie moving in a stooping position; why did lie deny in his statement being there! If he knew nothing ol the fire why his statement to Thomson. Hie duly of the jury if they had a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused was to acquit. If on the .other hand they did not have a reasonable doubt then it was their duty to convict. Tlie jury retired at 2.50 p.m. and returned, at 0.45 p.m. with a verdict of “guilty”, with a recommendation to mercy. Mr Sellers niade an appeal to His Honour for leniency, stating the prisoner was married with three children, and that since the occurrence he had taken out a prohibition order against himself. His Honour in sentencing the prisoner stated lie had been convicted of a. serious crime, bui he wou’d endeavour to give the fullest efleet to tlie jury’s recommendation. The prisoner had unhappily been before the Courts and probation had more than once keen extended to him. Under the circumstances probation could not he extended. Prinsoner would he sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labour.

SPECIAL CASE. UNDER THE MINING ACT. This whs a special case referred Lo the Court, in the Warden Court application of Lachlan McLachlan lor a prospecting license, with objection h.v .John Corbett thereto. Mr Eleook for applicant. Mr Murdoch for objector. .Mr Murdoch, dor the objector stated this was a special case set down for decision by toe Supreme Court. 'I he facts briefly were that McLncldan, the applicant was the holder of a license for a prospecting license granted on 23rd January 1030. The license would therefore lapse at midnight on 22nd ■ January 1931. MeLaehlau did not await the expiry of the license hut repeegod the claim on 21st January 1931 and had lodged the application In Court at 12.30 p.m. on 22nd January. If the application had been for a license for a claim it would not be in order, an appeal case, known as “Clifton v. Weibltz” being quoted. Tlio short question was whether the ground having been hold on-an ordinary prospecting license, did the rule as in Clifton’s ease (quoted) apply or not. If the holder of a prospecting license before the expiry of the license, can reneg and apply for a new license, it would give the holder ot a prospecting Mcense a better title than that of the holder of a special claim. After quoting statutes at some length ..ir .Murdoch concluded by claiming that the applicant had no power to mark out. the prospecting area before the expiry of the prospecting license held by him. and that therefore the objector first applicant to mark out after the expiry of the license, was entitled to a grant for the area of a prosooti.no - Hoenso as first applicant. The question of costs - Mi Murdoch stated

had been mutually arranged between conns I Air Eleoek for applicant in view of the clear statement of the position givb.v Air .Murdoch, confined himself to quoting tlie various sections of the Act affecting the position. His Honour intimated that he would take time for his decision which would lie given in writing. The Court, concluded at 1 p.m.