ALLEGED ARSON.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 June 1920, Page 6

ALLEGED ARSON.

MAG ON BROTHERS" CHARGED. ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. i Arising out pf a fire whichjoccurred at Rahotu 011 November 17, 11)19, in which a three-roomed cottage, occupied by Albert Edward Magon, was burned to the ground, Albert Edward Magon, Charles Magon and Frederick Magon appeared before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, charged, on the information of Detective Fitzgibbon, with arson, also with conspiring with each other by deceit to defraud the United Insurance Company of the sum of £2OO, being insurance on the furniture destroyed by the fire. Charles Mago.i and Frederick Magon were further charged with conspiring with Albert Edward Magon in the N commission of the offence. The charges were all indictable. . Sub-Inspector Hutton conducted the prosecution, and Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for the accused. Sub-Inspector Huttoh outlined the case for the prosecution. He stated that the accused Albert Magon, accompanied by his wife, left his house early in the morning on November 16th, leaving their house locked up. On the night of Nov; ember 17th the house, which was then unoccupied, caught fire and was burned, together with a quantity of furniture. He then detailed the evidence for the prosecution.

Rua Bishop, farmer, residing at Op-i----nake, who gave his evidence through an interpreter, deposed that he owned n three-roomed cottage at Rahotu, which he let to Albert Magon, one of the accused. In the first lease the garage belonged to Albert Magon, and in the second lease it belonged to witness. From February, 1919, until the cottage was burnt down, Albert Magon lived there, and paid 5s per week rent. The hous:; was valued at about £l5O, and was insured for £9O. •

Percy Vernon Esmond Staintoik, 'district agent of the United Insurance Company, said that Albert Magon insured his household effects with his company, the policy being effected on June 16,1919. Accused also had his car insured with the company. The amount of insurance on the furniture was fixed at £2OO, and ae-1 cused said the value was between £3OO and £350. In November, 1919, witness received a telegram from Albert Magon to the effect that someone had advised him his place had been burnt out the previous night. "Proof of loss" for £75 was put in by Albert Magon (produced). It was signed in witness' presence before Mr. Cattley, J.P. The signature was Albert Magon's. Maurice Coffey, laborer, residing at Rahotu, deposed that prior to November 17 he was a neighbor of Albert Magon. The morning before the fire Albert Magon and his wife left in their car. During the day on which they went away he noticed about four baths and a copper outside the house. About 1 am. on November 17th witness discovered Magon's house was on fire, and had been practically burnt. The garage was burnt to the ground?'when witness got there, and the only part «f the house standing was th■» part nearest to witness' house. Witness and his wife were the first at the fire, and their own house was on fire when he got out. There were not as many baths there as there were before. He could not swear that the baths (produced) we're those that he saw at the house, but they were similar.

I Thomas Pole Hughson, storekeeper,. Rahotu, said that on the morning of November 17tb he found his cattle wero out of their paddock. He discovered that the wire gate of his paddock was lying down flat, and had been thrown back. H° also found a small door-mat lying just outside the gateway on the Toad. Tt was the one produced in Court. Subsequently he handed it to the police. lii did not think any horses had gone into the paddock. The distance from logon's house to where witness found tli3 mat would be about a quarter of a mil.\ Sub-Inspector Htitton then proceeded to call, Ivy Magon, wife of Albert Magon. Mr. Quilliam protested against th? wife of one of the accused being called to give evidence against him. Sub-Inspector Hutton said that her evidence ,was not to prove anything against her husband, but his two brothers. Mr. Quilliam further protested, and remarked that it was a pity the police could not conduct their case without calling the wife of one of tH accused to give evidence for the prosecution. He offered 110 further objection to the witness remarking that he would refer to the matter again when the case came before jury. . Witness then proceeded. She said that she and her husband left the cottage on November ICth, about 5.30 a.m. Thjy bolted the front door, but the back door had only a peg in it, which, however, completely fastened it. They went to Stratford, and subsequently heard that the house had been burnt down. Her husband had brothers residing at Warea Nothing was removed from her house about October 10th, and she did not remember remarking that certain goods had been taken to the house of a sister-in-law who had had a fire. She gave Constable Tizard. of Stratford, a list of articles that had been in her house. The value of the articles came to £142 10s. JMective Fitzgibbon showed her the cash-box (produced) at Te ICuiti, and she recognised it as her husband's property. It was taken to her father-in-law's farm the day they left Rahotu. The stockings (produced) were not in the house at ths time of the fire. The duchess (produced) had been in her house in New Plymouth some time before her husband went out. All of her furniture was in the house when they left before the fire. The remaining articles of furniture produced in Court were not her 3.

To Mr. Quilliam: The duchess belonged to Fred Magon. To the Sub-Inspector: She had seen the duchess at Fred Magon's new house. It left her place in 1318. It was in the chaff-house at her father-in-law's house before that house was burnt.

Mary Coffey, wife of Maurice Coffey, Raliotu, deposed that Mrs. Magon had a duchess similar to the one in Court, but she would not swear it was the same one. Witness also recognised some of the other articles of furniture as being similar to articles she had seen in Mrs. Magon's house. Kreti, wife of Momona-Tamilian#, Raliotu, said- that on the "picture night" in October last she saw two spring carts pufl up outside Magon's place. Fred Magon was in the cart. She saw the car~.s go away empty, and when they came back they were covered over. As the cart returned she noticed that Fred Magon was driving. She recognised him thoroughly. Motnona Tamihami, farnier, Rahot'i, Mid that on October 10th Albert an 1

Freil'Magon came into his billiard room. Soon after he went out and saw the carts standing outside. He did not know whose carts they were. There was-some-thing in one cart, but* it was not fuii. The load was covered over with a'ta.paulin, and was irregular in shape. . To Mr. Quilliam: The date lie saw Ui; carls was October 17. He remembered'it clearly. Albert Scliinckel, fanner, Rahotu, said that on or about October 17th, Mrs. M.>moua drew his attention to two spring drays in Rahotu village- He did not take much notice, but one had something in it which looked like a piano. The oarcs were close up alongside Magon's house. Constable O'Neill, Rahotu, gave evidence as to thp debris of furniture found after the fire.

Detective Fitzgibbmi. and Charles Magon (father of the accused) also gave evidence.

The three accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges, and reserved their defence. They were committed for trial at. the next sessions of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth, bail being allowed Albert Edward Magon, self in £IOO ami two sureties of £IOO each. Charles Magon and Frederick Magon are at present serving terms of reformative treatment t in New Plymouth gaol on other charges.