UPREME COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8758, 7 March 1907, Page 3

UPREME COURT.

ill PALMERSTON NOETH. 'UB The criminal sessions were Continued P® yesterday before His Honor, Mr Justice '* Chapman; ALLEGED ARSON. Jafie Martin, an elderly woman, for whom Mr Coopeijappeared, was charged with wilfully Betting fire to her house in Fitzherbert StiSetTon June 19th. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Fitzherbert in opening the case said that accused had a small house in Fitzlierbert Street. There was a mortgage b£ about £4OO, and accused was slightly' behind with her interest. In March, 1902, she insured the building for £3OO, and in December, before the fire, she managed to get the insurance increased with another company, bringing the total up to £BOO. She also had some furniture insured, bringing up the insurance total to £llsO, Her private income was 40s a week. On the morning of the fire accused, who had been making jam, was‘.fully dressed when the outbreak took place in a pile of wood alongside the house. Accused, when she found out that an enquiry was to be held, had told her tenants that they were all to agree that the outbreak originated through a defective chimney. Persons who assembled at the fire found no end of bundles packed up ready for removal. R; A. Sollitt having inspected the building estimated its value at £505. Kate Lccaldano said that her husband and herself rented some rooms in the house. Bhe related the circumstances on the night 0 ; the lire, how accused was jam making up till an early hour in the morning. The fire started from the outside of the building in a pile of wood. Accused was fully dressed tit the lime of the outbreak and appeared to bb quite indifferent, and was scon coming from where the fire originated. Witness saw bundles ready packed up for removal. The husband of the former witness gave corroborative evidence, and stated that after the fire he and another man had removed some boxes to Mr Martin’s house. They looked into one, and saw a number of things carefully packed away.of He would say that the packing process occupied a considerable time. Mrs France deposed that accused came to her house on the night of the fire. Accused told witness the amount of insur- j ance which she had, and witness remarked ' that the building would not cost that much. ■ Accused replied 11 Don’t make a talk about it until X get the money.” I L. Reuben deposed to helping to remove ] some of accused personal effects, and lie noticed boxes packed. A. France, who had been a builder lor 23 years, estimated the value of the house distroyed at £550. Detective Quirke repeated the evidence which he gave in the lower Court. I This closed the case for the prosecution. ( Counsel for defence said that the accused had the reputation of being a respectable citizen, who had lived in Palmerston for a number of years. She would not be satis- ■ fied untill she had put her full defence before the public, and he was sorry on that ‘ account that the case would be of considerable length. The jury would then have to bo satisfied that there was some motive for the crime, t He would attempt to show that the £ evidence of Reuben and Mrs Lecaldano ] was a complete fabrication. .If such wore ' not the case they could he sure that the j Crown would have produced the persons (

to whom the money was owing, and this they had failed to do. F. F. Mayo, carrier, deposed to having taken away household effects on the day after the fire. These were comprised of two or three boxes and burnt bedding. Ho assisted to pack a considerable quantity of these goods, and ho was certain that ho had helped to assist in packing all the goods which ho carted away. He did not notice any silver, but he noticed about a dozen bottles of jam.

He also took some firewood away which had been standing in the yard. The wood was slightly burnt, probably from the heat of the house. Under cross-examination, witness said that ho may have told Detective Quirk that he did not remember what he had carted away.

The Court here adjourned for tea until 8 p.m. On resuming M. Malcolm, furniture dealer, said that there was between £2OO and £230 worth of furniture in the house. It was mentioned to him that accused wanted an insurance on her furniture. He told Mr Mowlem its value, as before stated. From what lie knew of accused she had an excellent character.

Mrs Tonks was familiar with all the furniture and the house, and would estimate the wardrobe at £IOO. She never heard cf Mrs Martin being hard up for money. Mr Fowler, Palmerston representative for the D.1.C., gave evidence as to accused pur-

chasing goods from him. Helen Martin, daughter of accused, said she was away on the night of the fire.

Her mother objected to her going that night. When the insurance policy was taken out her mother was weak and ill and unfit to transact business. She wanted £2OO on the house and £350 on the furniture. The pro-

posals were not written in when her mother signed, and had not been written in until she handed them back to Mr Mowlem. Witness did not ask for £4OO insurance, and did not look at the policy when it was returned to her as she was not interested. She accounted for some of the things being packed up owing to it being necessary to shift a portion of the furniture to make room for the tenants. She saw a heap of wood up against the chimney belonging to the tenants after the fire, and thought a strange thing the wood had not been burnt. The packed boxes referred to were in the same condition ns they always were. The fewhousehold effects brought to her father’s house after the fire were almost valueless. Mrs Laoaldano told witness that she first saw the fire over the mantelpiece. She had managed her mother’s financial affairs, and did not see any great difference in her financics.

Mrs Emily Bishop, a nest door neighbour of accused at the time of the fire, described how a number of hurriedly tied bundles -were placed on her verandah after being saved from the burning house. J. Eendoll, a carrier, raid he carted two half loads from the fire, but there was nothing of much value. Witness had some conversation with Reuben subsequent to the fire, and the latter told him that his evidence would be given for the party offering the most money. Ho, Reuben, alleged that ho had already received an offer from the Insurance Company and said that ho would speak against Mrs Martin unless she came along with more. F. Martin, husband of accused, said that the firewood was only partly burnt. There was nothing of any consequence saved. The chimney was narrow, and altogether a rotten structure. Thereof was originally covered with shingles and later on with iron. He had spoken to his wife several times about the defective chimney and advised her to have it pulled down. A number of bricklayers gave similar evidence.

His Honor in addressing the jury said a case of this kind was nearly alway difficult to investigate, and it was seldom that a piece of evidence formed a mainstay. It was always incumbent upon the Crown to make out a clear case, and if in doubt the jury must give the accused the benefit of the doubt. This case in some way came under the notice of the police, and a detective went to Mrs Martin, and on the first occasion accused was indisposed and not very much information was obtained. A letter was then read from a solicitor to Detective Quirke declining to give any details except through that solicitor. His Honor contended that receiving a letter like that would tend to excite suspicion'as to the circumstances, and it was not unnatural that the detective would follow up the investigations. A great deal depended upon tho evidence of the tenants, which was practically tho centre of tho whole evidence. The prosecution entirely depended upon the evidence of finding accused dressed at the time of tho outbreak. If .the evidence of one was accepted that accused was fully dressed, then it was inconsistent with the evidence that she was in a halfdressed condition later and in a fainting state. A great deal of the evidence was in complete conflict. It was not ununr<jasonablo to imagine that a mistake was made in the insurance, but it was evident that it did not escape observation. The Jury retired at 13.5 p.m. At a.m, they wore brought in and

asked by His Honor if they required any assistance.

The foreman explained there were a few of the jury that could not come to a definite conclusion owing to the conflicting evidence. His Honor said it was always unfortunate when there was a disagreement, but at the same time no .man should surrender his opinion. The jury again retired.

The jurv returned again at a few minutes ; to 2 a.m. with a verdict of not guilty.