Kaimata Tragedy

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 186, 5 February 1914, Page 7

Kaimata Tragedy

A PAINFUL ECHO. CLAIM AGAIXST THE PUBLIC • TRUSTEE. VKKDJCT KDK PLAINTIFF FOR .C72H.

A painful echo of the terrible tragedy at Kaimata in August, PH.'i, in wliicii Edward Julian, Prank Smith and (Jladys Julian were killed liy a fanner named Virgin, and the house in which the parly slept was burnt down, was heard in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The case which recalled the tragedy was one in which Eva Julian, the widow of Edward Julian (for whom Mr. J. IT. Quilliiim appeared), claimed from the Public Trustee, executor in the estate of Frederick John Vir»in. the sum of £B2O 14s, the value of the house and furniture alleged to harp been destroyed by the wrongful act of Virgin. Mr. {'. 11. Weston acted for the Public Trustee. The following jurv was empanelled: 0. 11. Burgess, T.' ]?.' Salter. Win. E. Bcudall, A. S. Maseli, J. W. Sturmev. M. Jones, Wm. Tweedale. E. Hilling, A. 0. Pegg, William Ily. Drinkwaler. IT. J. Blanchard and A. C. Case. Mr. Burgess was chosen foreman.

Tho details of the tragedy, as outlined by Mr. (Juilliam yesterday to tho jury, are sufficiently well known to need but little reiteration. Edward Julian was the owner of a farm at Warea which t he arranged to exchange for a farm at j Kaimata, the property of Frederick John Virgin. On August VI, when the exchange had been completed. Virgin, Julian, his children (Verner, Dorothy and (tladys), with Frank Smith, a carter from Xcw Plymouth, who was engaged to cart the furniture from Julian's house, slept together in (he house at Kaimata, which Julian had bought from Virgin. That night Virgin murdered Smith. Julian and Gladys Julian, and it was alleged that he then set fire to the house. Virgin's body was subsequently discovered in n river close by. Verner and Dorothy Julian escaped. The verdict at the inipiest on (lie victims of the tragedy was that Virgin murdered them. The only reason which could be assigned for the crime was that Virgin regretted having made the exchange of farms, and brooding over this had made him insane. The verdict at his inquest was one of •'•suicide, while temporarily insane." The Public Trustee, who was administering the estate of Virgin, had objected to pay the amount claimed by Mrs. Julian for the house and furniture destroyed, on the grounds that there were not sufficient grounds for believing that Virgin had wilfully burnt them. '

Tlie most painful feature of yesterday's proceedings was the lenjilhy examination of the two Jul inn children ami Mrs. Julian, who had to recount again the story of the awful night at Kainiata. More than onco his Honor remarked that lie could not see the use of this painful procedure, and could not understand what Hie Public Trustee wanted, but Mr. Weston n- S rcited that he could make no admission of facts, and the case proceeded. Thomas Julian, of YTarea, farmer, deposed tliat the late Kdward Julian was liia brother. He. had known Virgin. The day before his late brother's sale Virgin and his brother had a conversation in the presence of witness, in which Virgin said: '•(■ an you not let in" oil' the bargain':" His brother said: "It is too late now. I did not ask you to buy llu farm!" Virgin said: " I'ou will drive me to do Miinelliin;; desperate."

To Mr WVston: ],atcr on. at the sale, Virgin bought some of bis ■brother'.) stock, apparently with a view to using it on the farm at Warea. At the tim.' he was sure his brother had not taken Virgin's remark as a threat.

Then followed the evidence of Venier Kdwanl Julian ami Dorothy Julian, the two children who escaped from the house on the night of the murder. They told their painful story clearly and in terms identical with those used by them at the inquests which followed the crjnu. They told of the amicable party which retired to rest that night, and of the fearful moment when Virgin crept into tiie bedrooms and killed his victims. Mr Weston had few questions, to ask them. Samuel Death, Kainiata, fanner,stated that his farm was adjacent to Julian's at Kainiata, about 12 miles away. There was a fair view of the house from his own. He told how the boy Julian came to liia house to raise the alarm. Charles Nicholson, assistant at the Kainiata cheese factory, stated that the previous witness awoke him at H.-l."i on the morning of the tragedy, .lie saw (he house in, flames. Era Julian, plaintiff in the ease and widow of the late ICdward Julian, deposed that up to August last she and her family lived at Warea. Her husband was rather deaf. She had seen the house at Kainiata. Tt was a well-lin-i.-lied house. While at Warea she helped to pack her furniture to be taken to Kainiata by the driver Smith. Lists of this, duly sworn to, were handed to the jury. To Mr Weston: There was an insurance of £IOO on the furniture, but it had lapsed. There was no insurance whatever on tin- bouse at the time of the 'fire. She did not know what the house had been insured for by Virgin. She knew that Virgin wanted to cry.oil' the bargain, and that he offered her husband money to cry off the bargai 1, but she did not know how much. Edward Taylor, of Inglewood, deposed j that he bad built the house in question, and subsequently repaired it. He valued it at the time of the tragedy at £450. Oeorgc Taylor, of New Plymouth, brother of the previous witness, who -had been employed by him on the house, valued it at £475. Mr Weston here admitted the circumstances of Virgin's death. This closed {he case for the plaintiff. Mr Weston, in opening the case for the defendant, asked for leave to argue at the close of the ease that there was no case to go before the jury, as the onus of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the lire was caused by Virgin's intention, as distinctive from his action.

His Honor ;ravc liim leave, lint was of opinion I hat tliiTr was an irresistible intlucncc In assume that Virgin deliberately Imrnt Uh- house. M'r Woston iln-ii intimated that he would at present only addre-s tin- Com'!: on tin- question of damages, ami in particular as to Hie \alue of the furniture. A valuation had been given at f4">f» for the house, and with this lie was .-afi--lied: but Hi.- plainliir was claiming £S2O odd for |li.- furniture, wliieli. unfortr. ii:it"h- lmd L'on.-. and so it was dilTi.-uli to form nn intimate of its value. Hut the jury v.;.- riifitled to renienibei' Unit the 'furniture had pn-vioudv been in-..lir.-tl at .-nl.i tlu'b and although this

was no (cm of its value, still it was a f.ii'lor in d'-l.'-ruiiHlii'-' tin- evi.lenf-e. Farther, all ii-.- I'urnituri.- was no mure iha ;

would go on to one lorry. lie submitted that it was not likely that a man in Julian's position \voui:l own very expensive furniture. Margaret Virgin, widow of the Into V. -I. Virgin, deposed that she was at her husband'.- liok,l' when the. Julians arrived with their iuniiture. She particularly noticed the linoleum, which was of inferior quality. The furniture, was not of a wry expensive, class. Her practice while at the Kaimata house was to burn tawa wood in the lii-phu <■ at night, and in the morning this would often he found still -mouldering. There I was insanity in her husband's family. To Mr (Ji'iilliiini: She only liad a cursory look at the Julians' furniture, an I would not. like to dispute Mr,. Julian's valuation of it. .lame- Capper. Kuimaia, farmer, ,le-pos-d that tie weni to Walea alio' brought, up some furniture to Kaimata for .Mrs .liiliiin. He brought onlv sma.i articles of furniture. Ccorge Capper, oi Kaimata, farmer, j deposed that he had known Virgin for j 1!) years. He knew that for' a. wivk-or two Ird'ore the tragedy Virgin was ,ij s . tres-ed in his mind. 'This closed the case for the defence. .Mr Weston then addressed the jury on the facts of the case, The question iva-. he -aid, bow the lire was caused. It was admitted that Virgin had murdered three people, and that the lire happens! throue.h bis agency, but the jury would readily see that the further question aro-e as to whether this was due to the design, carelessness, or accident of Virgin. There was no evidence to show that he committed the deed wilfullv. He traversed the facts in support of hicontention. The hoy had seen a man come from the kitchen with a light; the ' girl had seen a reflection cf a light, and heard crackling and smelt kerosene. On these facts they were asked to a-simie that Virgin set fire to the house wilfully. It could be but mere assumption.

Hi- Honor remarked that commonsouse dictated the assumption repudiated by Mr Woston. Of course the fire have been accidental, but that was hifjidy improbable. There was ample evidence to justify a verdict for the plaintilV. 'L'lii' vulii'.' of tlic house was admitted, hut that of the furniture must be a-sossod by the jury. Al'ier a fairly long retirement the jury found for the plaintilV with IM-11l damages for the house and £-!7(l for the furniture. Jlr Weston then asked leave to arfiue the non-suit point re'ied by him, but later withdrew his rei|U3St. His Honor finally gave judgment for plaintilV for £720, 'reserving the settlement of tin- costs to lie allowed until today, to consider a point in dispute between counsel.