MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2925, 10 August 1882, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before J, Beswick, Esq., R.M., and Dr Fisher.) FOEOEEY. J. M. Shepherd, on remand, charged with the forgery of the name of A. Christophers to a prommissory note for £250, was remanded tiilto-morrow on the application of Mr Inspector Pender. liTJNACYJohn Charles Ray was charged with lunacy. A- medical certificate was attached to the information, to the effect that accused ought to be looked after for a few days. Accused said he was quite capable of taking care of himself, in fact he was now engaged in bringing out a machine for catching pigs, which he intended patenting. He was remanded till Friday. INCEN DIABISK. Denis Heffernan, on remand, was charged with procuring the setting on fire of two stacks of barley at Waitohi. The police conducted the prosecution and Mr Hamersley appeared for accused. The following evidence was taken : Constable Black, (acting detective) said he arrested the accused, who denied the charge. G. C. Miles, local manager of the New Zealand Insurance Company, said the accused had made a proposal for the insurance of certain stacks, that he (witness) had then questioned accused as to the quality, value, &c., of the same. He put the special question : “ Has the risk been declined by any other office? If so, state the reason,” and accused' replied “ No.” Accused set a value of £l5O on the stacks ; and he signed the proposal, An interim policy was made out and given to accused. The policy expired at noon on July 27 last. On July 26 witness saw Heffernan at half-past three in the afternoon. When accused called he asked witness if he would renew the j&licy. Witness told him he could not : that the barley ought to have been threshed out long before. Accused said he could not get a threshing machine. Witness declined, and told accused to go to some other office. Accused remarked that the policy expired in a day or two. Next morning witness received information that the stacks were burned ; that was the 27th. Witness saw accused that day at the railway station, but heard nothing from him about the stacks being burned. On the 28th he saw accused in the street and they went to witness’ office together. After conversation they went to the Union Bank and saw the policy with accused’s endorsement on it. Accused then said be did not remember giving his endorsement. When accused applied for a renewal of the risk he did not press the matter after witness had refused. Witness went out on 28th inst. to see the stacks, which were still, burning. The ground was not ploughed round.

To Mr Hamersley—lt was about an hour before the south train left that accused called to renew the policy. X do not remember whether or hot accused said that be had the policy in the Bank. I cannot say how long I took over questions attached to the proposal when be first insured, I took the usual time, , I believe. Alfred William Gaze said he was ’ agent for the Union Insurance Company at Pleasant Point. Accused asked him to insure two stacks of barley on April 10 for £l5O. A proposal was made out. Witness demurred to making it out for £l5O and suggested a less amount, but consented at last to make it out. Mr Hamersley objected to this evi- ■ dence as irrelevant to the point at issue. His Worship thought Mr Pender pro- ; bably bad good , reason for this examination, and permitted it to be continued. Examination, continued Witness ■ gave accused a preliminary note, covering the risk till he (witness) should communicate with the head office. From information and observation, witness recommended that the risk be declined. Is was declined by the bead office. Witness and accused met afterwards, and the latter pressed for the reason of bis proposal being declined. He afterwards called at witness’ office, on 27th April, and witness returned accused his premium. William Bedell, a farmer, residing , near Waitohi, said he lived half a mile from where the two stacks in question stood. He saw the stacks on the evening before they were burned, about half-past 4 o’clock. He ta.w them on fire at seven next morning. He never ■■ noticed whether they were thatched or not. The barley was hardly dry enough for harvesting. Witness never bad any difficulty in getting a threshing machine. There was one near at band. Witness bad seen a threshing mpohino at accused’s place, bat knew nothing about what became of it. To Mr Hamersley—From the road Heffernan’s stacks looked heavier than mine. 1 know nothing about Hoare’s crop of barley. Last year was rather a bad season : the crop did not turn out according to expectation. Ee-examined —At the time of the fire there was a light north-westerly wind blowing. The stacks were fourteen or fifteen feet apart, Matthew Driscoll, farmer, Waitohi, remembered the burning of the stacks on the 27th. They were three to four yards opart; and when witness saw , them they were both on fire. The Witness noticed ;the straw was luxuri. ant, but as to the heads he could not say. Ho could not pronounce it a good crop. It was greenish when it was cut. The paddock from which the crop was taken was a 20-acre one, not all laid in barley. Fifteen or sixteen acres wore laid in barley. There were sometimes cattle at the stacks, feeding round. There was no fence or ploughing round the stacks, and witness believed they were not thatched. As an experienced farmer, having seen the growth, gathering, and stacking of the crop, witness , could not say about their value. He had had crops himself and never had any difficulty about getting a machine. Witness saw a machine at Holloman’s on or about Ist. June. It remained there about a week. It belonged, he hoard, to Scanneli. To Mr Hamersley—-I never took any special interest in the crop, and therefore know knowing of its value. It was a pretty late crop. To the Bench—l would not have given £IOO for the stacks, I would not have given £6O for them, for my own 1110.

Michael Fleming, laborer, Waitohi, •aid he had harvested the barley for accused. It was a fair crop with good straw, but witness could say very little as to the grain. It appeared not to have a rery good head. It was a late crop. There were 15 or 16 acres of barley in the paddock. To Mr Hamersley—lt was a heavy crop. The tilter was used in cutting. 1 was binding. There was no rust ,on the straw. * 2To the Bench—After harvesting for seven years, I cannot form any estimate at all as to the value of the crop. The crop might have been from 10 to 15 bushels yield per acre' G. P.Lovegrove, farmer, of _Makikihi, said Heffernan arrived at his place on the 27th, between 10 and 11 a.m., bringing him a letter. They had some conversation about the land, which was the subject of the letter. The land bad been let, but accused came to enquire whether it was to lot. It was let. To Mr Hamersley—lf accused had wanted to use it for oats, he might have had it. W. Rutherford, agent for the Liver- > pool, London and Globe Insurance Company, deposed to accused makng a claim on his office for 7 stacks burned on June 7. The amount —£400—had not yet been paid. T. Hall, of Hall and Meason, a firm of land agents, deposed to accused being much pressed for money at the end ot July. He hod property which, it realised upon, could have met any engagements. To Mr Hamersley—My firm lent him money. He might have hod whatever money he required from us, independently of the security of the stacks. Joseph Scanlan, constable at Pleasant Point, said he went to the stacks at 11 o’clock oh the 27th morning. They were on fire and he found a gorse stick fproduced) about 2 feet from one ox the stacks. By the appearances witness felt sure there had been a lot of straw between the bush and the stocky To Mr Hamersley—This stick produced is the remains of the bush. I call it a bush. I did examine it all round. I poked the .stack. My ’ reason for doing so was to get hold some grain for a sample. Indeed I did go close to the stack, for I touched it with my foot. (Counsel tried very hard to shake the witness’ evidence). I could . not tee whether the gorse had been used as a bedding for tbe stacks or not. This was the case for the prosecution. His Worship without hearing counsel, stated that there was not the slightest evidence to justify committal. The charge was a very proper {one to bring, bat there was no evidence to sustain it. The case would be dismissed. FALSE DECLAEATION. Dennis Heffernan was charged on the information of the police, with making a false declaration to Grosvenor Chater Miles, agent for the New Zealand In•urance Company, whereby a policy was granted him in respect of two ■tacks of barley. Mr Hamersley appeared for accused. His Worship remanded the case to Monday next. The same bail was allowed as on the previous occasion.