SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 306, 10 December 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

YESTERDAY. (Before His Honor Judge Gilliee.) Xrwn. The evidence in Finlayson’s case having been concluded, Mr, Rees argued that the theory of the prosecution was that the prisoner owed a certain debt of £2OO to Graham, Pitt and Bennett. He insured his propertv for £BOO, and then he went with the intention of burning the property in the middle of the night for the express purpose of paying the debt off. He considered a man must be mad to set fire to anything and so place himself in danger of getting seven years inprisonment when he would not get any benefit by so doing. Mr. Rees then proceeded to review the evidence and attempted to show its inconsistency and unreasonableness, The action of the prisoner in the matter alone went to prove how unreasonable and impossible the allegations made against him were. It would have to be proved conclusively, not by suspicion, to their minds that the prisoner was guilty of the crime alleged against him, and * he was certain if they looked at the facts and the circumstances and took them fully into consideration, they would find the evidence was not conclusive. His Honor, in directing the jury, said it was impossible for them to come to an absolute certainty, and could only approach by reason, as nearly as possible, to certainty, and to decide by the testimony of the witnesses. Their duty was to carefully weigh the testimony given, and to look at the facts which appeared to be proved by the testimony before they could judge for themselves as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. In doing that they would also have to use their reason as they would in any ordinary affair of everyday life. If the facts and the evidence brought them to such a conclusion as they would arrive at, and act upon in their every day affairs, then they would be perfectly justified in finding accordingly. If the evidence should be at all doubtful, he said by all means give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt and acquit him. It had been pointed out that there was one element in the charge, that not only must the person be proven to have committed the act, but it must be also proven that he did so with intent to defraud. He did not consider they would have any difficulty in regard o that. It x.ut -vq.... uc p 4 >.u, > 1 hem that there was a deliberate intention tn defraud or that it would be b *uetieial to the individual in burning the That was not what was meant, by ih-i words “ att- mpt to defraud.” Tha law Raid, that, if the act commil ted would have the effect of defrauding anyone, then the prisoner must ba presumed to have contemplated to that effect. Now, in that case, the prisoner was largely indebted to a certain firm, and from which he would have been released if the bailci >g was burned down. But apart from that altogether, there was a building which did not belong to him, and which was not insured in the name of the owner, and the consequence was if the building was burned, that he (the owner) would be defrauded of his property. So that there was an attempt to defraud, apart altogether from the fact that the prisoner would benefit by the aut or not. It would be the result of wiping off his heavy liability, and place him in a p >sition in , his credit would still be held good by ( creditors, and it would also probably means of keeping him from that he thought that b inkruptcy was harsh thing to go through. They , look at the case in another aspect, and ( quire, not in the light of a legal point, to whether there were any motives actuating the prisoner in committing the deed. The ’ prisoner insured for £290 properly that was ' only worth £BO, and it was for them to say from such circumstances as those, if there , was or was not, any Bpparrent motive in the . prisoner getting quit of his liability to the firm, cheating the insurance company, and getting from them some £250 for what was really worth not more than £BO, That alone would suggest a motive, but that was for them to ascertain, ere was the evidence of John WaMQ to whom the prisoner had said upon one occasion about two months previous to the fire perhaps in a chaffing way, “ That he might as well burn the store down.” It was quite clear that he did not then say that with the I deliberate intention to do it, but they were to find out whether it indicated an idea running in his head, that the business was so bad, that it grew on him and he carried it out. His Honor continued at great length, going j fully through the evidence, and advising the j jurv on what they were really to entertain and consider. , The jury retired shortly after five o’ulujk, j and as there was no appearance of their I returning before six, His Honor adjourned 1 the Court until seven, and sat again until 9.25 when the jury returned bringing in a verdict of “ guilty.” The prisoner said he had nothing to say, other than that he still protested his inno- [ cence. His Honor, in passing sentence said—• > Prisoner at the Bar, after a very patient trial i on the part of the jury, you have been found - guilty of this offence with which you are 3 charged. The crime of arson is a very serious 3 one, and deserves to be known as such to all, [ for in bad cases it involves penal servitude k for life. In your case it does not appear to ’ be one of the more reiious sort inasmufih 3 as it was yourself and your landlord defrauded j thereby. At the same time circumstances of , great cunning have been displayed by you in perfoiminn the Act, but as you have not been t, before the Court before, and looking to the 3 fact that the building burned was not in a , town or a place likely to create greater evils, I - shall not impose a very heavy penalty upon > you, and therefore sentence vou to two years t imprisonment with hard labor.

THIS DAY. TF. H. Twicer v. Coleman and Otters. Mr. Rees appeared for ths plaintiff and said the only question of fact al issue in the case was as to whether Riwhira Timo, one of the grantees in a block of land called the MataWnero C, in this district, was at tue time of his execution of the deed of conveyance in that block to the late Captain G. E. Reed, a minor, or not, or whether he was a minor at the time of his death. was alleged by the plaintiff and denied by defendants that Rawhira Timo was. in the year 1870, when he executed the deed, an infant. Mr. Whitaker ard Mr. Ward appeared on behalf of the defendants. Ramera Turoa was called and deposed that he knew the lad Rawhira Timo and his parents. At the time of his birtn his parents were living at Whakawhilira. Witness had a child named Te Ao who was borne on July 4th, 1857. Te Ao and Rawhira were nearly of the same age. He remembered the death of Rawhira which took place in 1874. To Mr. Whitaker—Did not know exactly the year Rawhira was born. Knew he died in 1874 as he (witness) went to cry over him. Rawhira was a married man, and had one child. Mr. Rees—lt is usual for Maoris to marry earlier than Europeans. Hapi Kiniha remembered Rawhira but did not remembered exactly the year he was born in. Remembered when the mill at Tapiwhero was erected. It was in 1859. Rawhira was born previous to that, and was just able to walk about. Thought the cry over the death of Riwhira took place in 1874. To Mr. Whitaker—Knew the time Rawhira executed the deed in question. Would consider him about sixteen or seventeen years of age at that time. Wi Peri deposed as to knowing Rawhira. That his parents were his (witnesses’) relatives. Rawhira was born on the 7th of March, 1857. Riperata Kahutia and Hirini Te Kani w re recalled, and deposed as to the date of the death of Rawhira in 1874. A. F. Hardy was the only witness called f<r the defence and deposed that he witnessed Rawhira’s signature to a deed of conveyance in the Matawhero C Block. At that time he considered Rawhira about seventeen or eighteen years of age. Believed that Rawhira die.l in 1874. Mr. Whitaker said that was the whole of the evidence f r the defence, and that they now simply desired his Honor to give his decision on the issues raised as from the evitleuce. His Honor said that upon the evidence brought forward there was no doubt that the issues would have to be answered in the affirmative. The evidence showed that on

► the 19th day o! July, 1870, the date of signing the deed, Rawhira Timo was an infant, end that he was still an infant at the time of his death in 1974, He found accord- - ingly. \ MM v. Kahutla and Othera. Mr. Rees appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. for the defendant. This was an action in which the plaintiff claimed to have Katarina Kahutia's shares in the Tahoka and Tnruheru Blocks declared the property of Riperata Kabulis. This arose ont of the case in the Native Land Court, when Mr. Brookfield upset the deeds of Katarina in favor of Riperata. Mr. Brassey did not object to this. His Honor granted the application without easts. A. Steven* v. J. Tvtchen, Mr. Rees with Mr. Robinson, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr, Kenny with Mr. Finn, appeared to defend, This was an action brought by the plaintiff in order to recover £5OO from the defendant for alleged damages by publishing false and malicious statements with regard to his recent conduct in reference to the burning down of his house, which took place during the *' r His Honor pointed out, before going into p the evidence, that it was distinctly laid down by authorities that in such cases of slender, such as that, the crime must be distinctly imputed, and it was not sufficient to merely -express a suspicion that the crime had been ■Committed, He did not consider the allegefetiona complained of imputed anything direct. Mr. Rees said he would then apply to amend by putting in special damage, and his P'Honor could adjourn meanwhile, r Mr. Kenny said he would object to an K amendment on this ground, that the plain, f tiff would then be going on on a totally different cause of action. By the present Ji action the plaintiff said that the words were I actionable per se, but now he wished to change round altogether, and make a fresh Charge of it. Mr. Bees said as further transactions in rep. gard to the case had recently taken place k they deemed it advisable to take a nonsuit in (s-the cask with the view to commencing a i fresh action, The nonsuit was granted accordingly. Costs J, to be considered further on in the proceedure of the case. b 'Left sitting.]