THE CLARK CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 February 1918, Page 7

THE CLARK CASE.

SCATHINC REMARKS BY JUDGE EDWARDS. At the Supreme Court (the Wanganui Chronicle reports) Mr. Justice Edwards, ,in sentencing a travelling auctioneer — John Benjamin Clark, who was found guilty of setting fire to ji shop at Stratford, said: "Since you were last before the Court, I have received further reports from the police," said his Honor. "These reports are not going to increase your period of sentence, as I have already determined it, after consultation wilh, Mr. Justice liosking, before I received the reports. Here is the first report: 'Clark arrived from Australia eight years ago. He was a cheap-jack auctioneer and showman, who constantly associated with Australian pickpockets. If there were any about, they were always found in Clark's company, or assisting him.' "A report by Detective Cassels states: 'I have known Clark about ten years. He came from Australia, and is a spieler. ,He has been arrested before and charged with obtaining money by false pretences by a method known as "bouncing.'' He is known as "Bouncer" Clark. How he obtained an auctioneer's license is a mystery to me.'" Prisoner: "That is manufactured, your Honor." "You have been found guilty of one of the most serious of crimes, which has been aggravated by an attempt to accuse an honest tradesman of setting fire to tbe place to destroy the goods of your nefarious trade," continued his Honor. "You deliberately set about to destroy your premises, and brought stones from New Plymouth, with the intention of causing any person who handled the cases to suppose they were filled with heavy goods. That is not an uncommon practice in some countries, where hotelkeepers find, after their guests are gone, that their bags have been filled with bricks or other rubbish. In this case you pretended to have goods that you did not possess. The fire might have destroyed the whole town, or a part of it, as was the, case at Dannevirke, although in that instance I do not suppose the cause was other than accidental. Anyone who set, fire to a wooden building could not determine what the damage might be. You knew perfectly well the goods of the unfortunate tradesman next door would be destroyed. I dp not propose to punish you for the infamous i course taken by your counsel in urging to the jury that the crime was committed, not by you, but by the tradesman who was partly ruined, because you entrusted that part of the scheme to another person, although no doubt you assisted to have that unfortunate man asked questions to fasten insults upon him. However, all the questions asked he answered satisfactorily. I repeat what 1 said before—the course taken in the defence of the prisoner was contrary to all traditions of the bar, and in itself disgraceful The crime was proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Never in an experience of over 22 years has a case come before me in which a prisoner has been convicted on evidence which pointed to such a direct conclusion of guilt. You ought really to receive the maximum term of imprisonment, but I have already fixed the term, and will adhere to it. You will be sentenced to six years' hard labor."